An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans: The Case Study of Kavala 0367260182, 9780367260187

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of figures
Preface
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Summary
Introduction
Notes
Chapter 1: Formation of Ottoman era towns in the Balkans
The "Orientalism" of the Ottoman Balkans
The multi-layered face of the Ottoman Balkan town
Plan and siting of the Ottoman town
The core of the Ottoman town
System of mahalle and street layout
The Ottoman house plan typology in Rumelia
Chapter 2: History and urban development of Kavala
Before Kavala: Neapolis and Byzantine Christoupolis
Ottoman conquest of Kavala – the aftermath (1391–1478)
Urban development in the sixteenth century
The house program in the walled town
Kavala's urban development between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries
House program and typologies
Kavala's development extra muros: the era of the tobacco industry (between the early nineteenth and early twentieth centuries)
Chapter 3: Conclusion
Note
Appendix
Notes
Glossary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans

An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans: The Case Study of Kavala presents the town of Kavala in Northern Greece as an example of Ottoman urban and residential development, covering the long period of Kavala’s expansion over five centuries under Ottoman rule. Kavala was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1387 to 1912. In the middle of the sixteenth century, Ibrahim Pasha, grand vizier of Suleiman the Magnificent, contributed to the town’s prosperity and growth by the construction of an aqueduct. The Ottomans also rebuilt and extended the existing Byzantine fortress. The book uncovers new findings about Kavala, and addresses the key question: is there an authentic “Ottoman” built environment that the town and its architecture share? Through the examination of travelers’ accounts, historical maps, and archival documents, the Ottoman influences on the urban settlement of Kavala are assessed. From its original founding by the Ottomans in the late fourteenth century to the nineteenth century when the expansion of tobacco production in the area transformed its prosperity, the development of Kavala as an Ottoman era town is explored. The book will be of interest to scholars and students interested in Ottoman history and urban history. Velika Ivkovska was born in Skopje, then the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. She is a trained engineer architect and an academician. She completed her doctoral studies at Istanbul Technical University, Turkey and is currently an Assistant Professor at Bahçeşehir University, Turkey. She is a member of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Macedonia and she actively participates in conferences and seminars concerning the built heritage and its protection and preservation. She has published widely on the architectural, vernacular, and urban environments.

Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies General Editors: Leslie Brubaker Rhoads Murphey John Haldon Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies is devoted to the history, culture and archaeology of the Byzantine and Ottoman worlds of the East Mediterranean region from the fifth to the twentieth century. It provides a forum for the publication of research completed by scholars from the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies at the University of Birmingham, and those with similar research interests. Writing about Byzantium The History of Niketas Choniates Theresa Urbainczyk The Cult of St Anna in Byzantium Eirini Panou Eastern Trade and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages Pegolotti’s Ayas-Tabriz Itinerary and its Commercial Context Tom Sinclair The Eloquence of Art Essays in Honour of Henry Maguire Andrea Olsen Lam and Rossitza Schroeder Iconophilia Politics, Religion, Preaching and the Use of Images in Rome, c.680–880 Francesca Dell’Acqua Well-Preserved Boundaries Faith and Co-Existence in the Late Ottoman Empire Gülen Göktürk

Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies University of Birmingham For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/series/BBOS

An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans The Case Study of Kavala

Velika Ivkovska

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Velika Ivkovska The right of Velika Ivkovska to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ivkovska, Velika, author.

Title: An Ottoman era town in the Balkans : the case study of Kavala /

Velika Ivkovska.

Other titles: Case study of Kavala

Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Series:

Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman studies | Includes bibliographical

references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020012812 (print) | LCCN 2020012813 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367260187 (hbk) | ISBN 9780429291067 (ebk)

Subjects: LCSH: Kavala (Greece)–History. | Turks–Greece–Kavala–

History. | Architecture, Ottoman–Greece–Kavala. | Turkey–History–

Ottoman Empire, 1288-1918. | Kavala (Greece)–Buildings, structures, etc.

| Cities and towns–Balkan Peninsula–Case studies. | Kavala (Greece)–

Civilization–Turkish influences.

Classification: LCC DF951.K35 I94 2020 (print) | LCC DF951.K35

(ebook) | DDC 949.5/7–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020012812 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020012813 ISBN: 978-0-367-26018-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-29106-7 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies Volume 29

To my son Miron and my parents Blagoja and Elena

Contents

List of figures Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations Summary

ix

xii

xiii

xv

xvi

Introduction

1

1

Formation of Ottoman era towns in the Balkans The “Orientalism” of the Ottoman Balkans 11

The multi-layered face of the Ottoman Balkan town 15

Plan and siting of the Ottoman town 23

The core of the Ottoman town 26

System of mahalle and street layout 29

The Ottoman house plan typology in Rumelia 32

9

2

History and urban development of Kavala Before Kavala: Neapolis and Byzantine Christoupolis 44

Ottoman conquest of Kavala – the aftermath (1391–1478) 50

Urban development in the sixteenth century 52

The house program in the walled town 60

Kavala’s urban development between the seventeenth and early

nineteenth centuries 65

House program and typologies 86

Kavala’s development extra muros: the era of the tobacco industry

(between the early nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) 94

44

viii Contents

3

Conclusion

128

Appendix Glossary Bibliography Index

136

190

193

204

Figures

1.1 Eighteenth-century drawing of Thessaloniki with its walls and

fortress 1.2 Town morphology of the residential urban fabric of Sarajevo,

second half of nineteenth century 1.3 The cul de sac and the morphology of the residential urban

fabric in Safranbolu 1.4 Eighteenth-century urban map of Thessaloniki 1.5 House plan types with (1) outer hall; (2) inner hall; (3) central hall 2.1 Via Egnatia and the settlements on its route 2.2 Map of the island of Tassos from Piri Reis’s Kitab-i Bahriye,

1521 2.3 Sultan Selim I fortress built on the top of the peninsular hill,

with Ibrahim Pasha aqueduct and Mosque. From an old

engraving 2.4 Sultan Selim I fortress today 2.5 Interior of the Sultan Selim I fortress of Kavala today 2.6 Kavala’s aqueduct today 2.7 Kavala’s aqueduct 2.8 Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, today converted into the Church of

St. Nicholas 2.9 View of the Ibrahim Pasha Mosque from the port 2.10 The urban layout of seventeenth-century Kavala seen by Evliya Çelebi, showing the first Ottoman neighborhood (light gray) and the extension towards the tip of the peninsula

(dark gray) 2.11 House examples in the residential part of Ibrahim Pasha

neighborhood 2.12 Fountain in the middle of the residential area of Ibrahim Pasha

mahalle 2.13 View of the mosque and the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood’s

walled residential area (late eighteenth or early nineteenth

century)

19

28

30

31

35

46

52

53

54

55

55

56

57

59

60

61

62

63

x

Figures

2.14 Road network in the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood 2.15 Kavala’s neighborhoods and public structures in the nineteenth century 2.16 Drawing of Kavala 2.17 Panorama of Kavala showing the old walled town, the new structures built in the plains by the neck of the peninsula, and the many minarets 2.18 Edward Lear’s watercolor painting of Kavala, 1856 2.19 View of the middle-walled town with the fortress and the twentieth-century expansions in the distance 2.20 No longer extant Hüseyin Bey Mosque across the street from the Imaret külliye, c.1920 2.21 The remains of the fountain built by Mehmed Ali Pasha in Hüseyin Bey mahalle 2.22 Halil Bey Mosque today 2.23 Halil Bey medrese today 2.24 Kadi Ahmed Efendi Mosque’s minaret foundation remains today 2.25 Postcard from Kavala with the customs building, the Imaret, and the residential area on the hill 2.26 The Imaret complex following restoration (from the sea) – with the Kavala Kalesi (fortress) in the background 2.27 Imaret in the urban fabric in Hüseyin Bey neighborhood in the middle town 2.28 The primary school (mekteb) seen from the third inner courtyard 2.29 Section of the second medrese with view of the, now lost, second dershane 2.30 First floor plan of the Imaret complex with its different structures 2.31 Road network in the middle town 2.32 The neighborhoods of Ottoman Kavala intra muros (fourteenth to eighteenth centuries) 2.33 House with symmetrical floor plan and wide front 2.34 Mehmed Ali’s House 2.35 Schematic plan of the ground floor of Mehmed Ali’s House before its restoration in 2004 2.36 House plan types A, B, and C existing in the historical peninsula of Kavala 2.37 House on Mehmed Ali Street 2.38 House on Mehmed Ali Street, No. 15 2.39 The tobacco depots of the Commercial Company of Salonica Ltd 2.40 The first offices of M.L. Herzog et Cie, built after 1891 2.41 M.L. Herzog et Cie office (1899), today Kavala’s Town Hall

64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 80 81 82 82 83 85 86 87 88 91 92 93 96 98 98

Figures 2.42 The warehouses by the coastline 2.43 Photo of Kavala from 1903 with the Agios Ioannis church in construction and the neighborhood around it, from the book of George Frederick Abbot A Tale of a Tour in Macedonia, end of the nineteenth century 2.44 Plan of Agios Athanasios church in the village of Karaorman from 1886 2.45 General view of the türbe (mausoleum) of Ibrahim Ağa, father of Mehmed Ali Pasha, c.1930 2.46 Türbe (mausoleum) of Zeyneb Hatun, mother of Mehmed Ali Pasha, c.1930 (destroyed c.1967–1970) 2.47 View of Hamidiye neighborhood and mosque behind the aqueduct (after restoration) 2.48 Hamidiye Mosque in a postcard from the beginning of the twentieth century (after restoration) 2.49 The plan for the Hamidiye Mosque from July 18, 1908 2.50 Re-elaboration of the urban plan from 1901 for the new Selimiye neighborhood (main Ottoman toponyms indicated and translated into English by V. Ivkovska) 2.51 Plan for the new Agios Pavlos church in the Çaylar area of Kavala from 1903 2.52 The church of Agios Pavlos today 2.53 The Kumluk area with the türbe and the new land plot allocated for a Christian Girls’ School from 1893, signed by the Vice Consul of France 2.54 Re-elaboration with English translation of the urban plan of the existing area made by the Kavala Municipality’s engineer, a certain Fahri, as the site for construction of the Catholic Church and a school in the Çayırbaşı area from 1894 2.55 The façade project for the Catholic Church made in 1896 2.56 Baron Adolf Wix House built in 1899 2.57 Demetrius Tokkos’s property built in 1879 2.58 Kavala’s intra- and extramural neighborhoods by the end of its rule under the Ottomans

xi 99

101 102 103 103 104 105 106 107 109 109 110

112 113 115 116 117

Preface

After working as an architect for more than ten years and then completing my postgraduate studies in my hometown of Skopje, I decided to continue my work and conduct research on vernacular architecture, focusing on Ottoman domestic architecture in the Balkans. I always found domestic architecture, especially that left from our ancestors, alluring and inspirational, especially since I come from lands that once were part of the great Ottoman Empire and which bear invaluable traces of their domination. Therefore, my aim was clear: I decided to focus my new research on Ottoman urban, public, and domestic architecture. This direction led me to Istanbul on the advice of Professor William B. Bechhoefer, editor of a book of proceedings from a conference in Amasya that had a strong influence on me. He declared Istanbul Technical University the pre eminent place to study the subject I was interested in, even passionate about. I was lucky enough to be granted a scholarship by the Yurtdışı Türkiye Bursları to conduct my PhD studies at this university. The four years of my studies were filled with incredible growth of my knowledge of Ottoman architecture in general. The topic of this book chose me rather than the other way around: after a summer visit in 2014 to the small port town of Kavala in Northern Greece I ended up mesmerized by its old walled town and its domestic architecture. That is when I knew that I had to work on Kavala. The research phases were intense and astonishing because they brought so much amazing information about the town as well as wonderful people who all had their own influence on the path of my work. This publication mainly concerns the town of Kavala in Northern Greece. It has been chosen as an example of Ottoman era urban and architectural environment. Within this framework, this work covers the period of Kavala’s development under Ottoman rule between 1391 and 1912, for which I try to explain the urban development of the town, taking into account all the historical, architectural, economic, social, and political conditions that influenced its establishment, growth, and development throughout five centuries of Ottoman rule. In recent years, my studies have taken me to many conferences where I had the chance to present my works, compare my ideas with other colleagues and researchers, and also meet remarkable figures working in the field of Ottoman, Islamic, vernacular architecture and the field of the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage, especially in the Balkans.

Acknowledgments

Many people were part of my research process that led to this publication. I owe them endless gratitude. I will begin with my mentor and professor of my postgraduate thesis Professor Dr. Kokan Grchev, who literally opened doors to my academic career and to whom I am eternally indebted. Professor Heath Lowry, an incredible mind and a true mentor and adviser, the man who believed in me and selflessly shared all his knowledge and materials to help me reach my goal. Professor Philip Shashko, another incredible scholar, without whose help and constant push this work would have never taken the shape it took, and to whom I am forever grateful and indebted. Professor Dr. William B. Bechhoefer, who suggested I do my PhD at Istanbul Technical University, where I was warmly welcomed by the exceptional Professor Dr. Sinan Mert Şener who, at the time, acted as the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture. I also want to thank my adviser Professor Dr. Aygül Ağır, as well as Professor Dr. Murat Gül, Professor Dr. İlknur Kolay, Professor Dr. Turgut Saner, Assistant Professor Dr. Luca Orlandi, all from Istanbul Technical University. Meg Dreyer for editing and proofreading the manuscript. The people and the officials of Kavala were always more than willing to help me. Professor Sapfo Ageloudi selflessly shared materials and printed works from her private collection. Gratitude to Professor Kostantinos Lalenis who provided amazing visual materials from his private collections; Charalampos Papadopoulos for his efforts providing official illustrated materials, and Ioanna Dalkitsi for being the wonderful person she is and for her friendship. Further thanks to Assistant Professor Dr. Despoina Zavraka, Professor Dr. Maria Doussi, Professor Dr. Nicos Kalogirou, Professor Dr. Vilma Hastaoglu Martinidi, all from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Additional thanks to the dear people from TU Wien, Professor Dr. Caroline Jaeger-Klein and Professor Dr. Renate Bronberg, two outstanding scholars and academicians. From my home country of Macedonia, Professor Dr. Blagoja Kuzmanovski has followed my life and career for as long as I can remember. Maja Nacevska, the strongest and smartest woman I have ever met, whom I admire greatly and who is my role model; Nadica Velickoska, the woman with the strongest and kindest heart, who does for me what only a mother does for her children.

xiv

Acknowledgments

And the most important people in my life, my deceased grandparents Afrodita and Risto, who taught me most valuable life lessons and both of whom I miss immensely. My parents, Blagoja and Elena, who are my pillars of strength, especially during these past four years, and without whose help I could have never achieved this. And last but not least, my son Miron, the greatest achievement in my life, my constant driving force, the reason we embarked on this incredible journey, whose existence makes me stretch beyond my limits to be what I am today, for shaping me and for being my greatest love and my brightest guiding star. February 2020 Assistant Professor Dr. Velika IVKOVSKA (Engineer Architect)

Abbreviations

BAU OTAK BAU OTAK Osmanlı ve Türk Tarihi Araştırmaları Koordinatörlüğü (Bahçeşehir University Ottoman History Implementation & Research Center) BOA Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı (Directorate of Ottoman Archives) EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam Volume 2 OOZ Отдел Ориенталски Збирки (НБКМ) (Oriental Department, National Library Ss. Ciril and Methody, Sofia) TDV Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Turkish Religious Foundation Islamic Encyclopedia) TPML Topkapi Palace Museum Library

Summary

The town of Kavala grew out of the Ottoman conquest in the late fourteenth century to become a vibrant port city due to the activities of the sultans Selim I, Suleiman the Magnificent, and his grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha. Originally the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine town of Christoupolis, believed to be located on the later site of Ottoman Kavala. However, not much remains from the Byzantine time. This suggests that the later town of Kavala was a pure Ottoman era settlement, with no pre-existing structures, other than the remains of the Byzantine fort and the recently excavated basilica. Within the framework of the period from the end of the fourteenth century until the end of Ottoman rule, this study observes and presents the development of Kavala as an Ottoman era settlement in the Balkans. On a smaller scale, this work focuses on the organization of the Ottoman mahalle system and the development of the town’s urban space. In the first chapter, this work introduces the Ottoman town through the prism of Orientalism and introduces a view of it within the frame of the Ottoman Balkans, considering how much, or even if, the Saidian Orientalism can be applied to the Ottoman Balkans. It further moves on with introducing the specific characteristics of plan and siting, considering the geography, topography, and morphology of the area. Moreover, this chapter defines the peculiar urban features characterizing Ottoman towns and centers, including the concepts of çarşı, imaret, and mahalle, and the important relationships between the residential and commercial activities in these areas. In more detail, this work analyzes life inside the mahalle and the spatial organization of public and private areas within it. The second chapter focuses more closely on the main topic of the work and includes a short introduction to the town and its history, from the ancient Greek colony of Neapolis to the Byzantine Christoupolis; next, the study presents the urban development of the town of Kavala after the Ottoman conquest of the region, analyzing the progressive transformation of the town under Ottoman rule. In the subchapters, all the phases of the transformation of the town are presented chronologically, from early Ottoman occupation (1391–1478) of the region until the first mention of Kavala appears in the historical record. This analysis crosses the period of Suleiman the Magnificent and his grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha in the sixteenth century; the period of Mehmed Ali Pasha

Summary xvii between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; and the development of the industrial town in the era of the expansion of the tobacco industry in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Each of these subchapters addresses the different phases of the urban development, including public structures such as the aqueduct, the military fortress, the fountains, mosques or mescids, markets, and imarets, and identifies the street layout and the characteristics of the Ottoman houses inside the mahalles. Moreover, the increasing population and consequent urbanization of new areas outside the original walled Ottoman settlement of Kavala are taken into consideration and elaborated, as is the process of Westernization, recognizable by new approaches in its architectural aesthetics. The conclusion synthesizes all the work and presents Kavala’s authenticity as an example of a true Ottoman era settlement in the Southern Balkans. The final part of the work consists of references and annexes.

Introduction

This work falls within the category of Ottoman heritage studies, addressing the formation and development of an Ottoman era town in the Balkans. It examines previously unexplored and under-researched Ottoman architecture related to the urban development of the port town of Kavala in Northern Greece, supported by numerous original primary archival sources. Kavala was built along the Via Egnatia on a peninsula facing the Aegean Sea. It was probably built on the site of the ancient city of Neapolis, which later became the Byzantine Christoupolis before falling under Ottoman rule in 1391. For almost one hundred years thereafter the site was abandoned. No activities there can be tracked until the end of the fifteenth century, at which time the earliest mention of a village/town named Kavala is found in an Ottoman tax register (tahrir defter) dated 1478 (Hicri: 883).1 This document opens a door to extensive research on the settlement’s development, confirming Kavala to be a newly founded Ottoman era town rather than an urban center overlapping the previous Byzantine Christoupolis.2 Is there a genuine, authentic Ottoman built environment? By discovering new facts about this town and its structures and reviewing the available literature (travelers’ accounts, historical maps, and archival documents), this work examines the state of the art of Ottoman era urban planning in Kavala’s urban settlement. The literature dealing specifically with the urban development of Ottoman Kavala is limited; the only extensive work on Kavala’s urban development is the book published by Professor Amelia Stefanidou in 2007, entitled The Port Town of Kavala during the Period of Turkish Rule: Urban and Historical Investigation (1391–1912).3 Stefanidou analyzes the population and its ethnic background, examining the site in three different periods, occasionally interrupted by discussion of important Ottoman monuments built within these separate time frames. However, Stefanidou’s work does not develop analysis or theories about the formation and development of Kavala’s urban areas, from its conquest in 1391 until its falling under Greek rule. Her work is a survey of the historical monuments built on the historic peninsula; she follows secondary sources about the demographic changes which exist in BOA, and finishes by linking this archival data to the development of the town’s population. The research concerns only the public structures. It does not deal with the establishment of the first urban site or the increasing number of individual houses and further development of the neighborhoods, the so-called “Turkish

2

Introduction

mahalle”. The town’s growth from an urban and architectural point of view is incomplete. The present work is a complex synthesis, examining the urban development of Kavala and its Ottoman era architecture in one integral study. The research consolidates previous findings on Kavala’s history, economy, architecture, and culture with new research on the Ottoman town system and its architecture’s interaction with space, vernacular traditions, history, and life. Based mostly on original and unpublished archival documents, as well as pious foundations, mostly those for which there is evidence in BOA – which are those of Mehmed Ali Pasha as well as the smaller foundations of Halil Bey and Kadi Ahmed Efendi – the work covers almost five centuries of Ottoman domination, from 1478 until 1909. Among the archival documents on this topic a selection is presented in a separate appendix; these relate to shifts in the society, such as appointments of imams and judges, payment of taxes, construction works, and other activities that were ongoing in Kavala under Ottoman rule. All these documents, given in chronological order, provide, where possible, continuity in the settlement’s expansion through which we follow Kavala’s urban, architectural, religious, social as well as industrial development and growth. Many and disparate factors influenced the town’s birth and development. Physical factors included land configuration and geography. Geographic factors included the proximity of water, the sea, and other natural resources. Social factors included the housing program and the consequent aggregation of dwellings forming the mahalle giving the inhabitants a sense of community. Multiconfessional factors were determined by the presence of ethnic groups within those mahalles following different religions and their mutual cohabitation. Most important of all were safety factors related to protecting the settlement and its further development. Crucial for the town’s establishment, expansion and growth were: the reconstruction of the fortress and the walls surrounding the inhabited nucleus for the purpose of protecting the settlement; conveyance and distribution of water inside the protected settlement, providing life and prosperity; the town’s adaptation to the geography of its site; the organic street layout that enabled circulation inside the settlement; the coexisting ethnicities, which reflected Ottoman tolerance, acceptance, and respect; trade, especially the tobacco production and export in the later centuries that boosted the town’s economic prosperity; and finally the home/house, that core of Ottoman society representing family values and standing in the community. Many research trips and surveys were conducted to understand the development of the urban settlement together with its life, traditions, and culture. Attention was given to the period of Kavala’s industrial peak in the nineteenth century when the town became one of the biggest tobacco centers in the Mediterranean, which influenced its urban and residential growth at the turn of the century. The population explosion following this industrial development demanded new residential areas for the newcomers, many foreign, who introduced Western modes of urban planning and architectural styles to the town. As the old district on the peninsula grew overcrowded, the further urban development of the town offered

Introduction

3

another opportunity to introduce new architectural approaches to the domestic architecture. Considering all these important factors, this research tries to explain the town’s urban transformations occurring during five centuries of Ottoman rule. The purpose of this work is to determine the authenticity of an Ottoman era urban environment in the Balkans through a case study, the town of Kavala, through description and analysis of the town’s phases of urban development and its geographical environment. To this end, several objectives have guided the published work: • • •

Examination of primary archival resources related to Kavala’s establishment and the town’s historical continuity in Ottoman times. Presentation of a historical overview of the urban development of the town through published works as well as re-elaborated maps. Review of relevant texts dealing with the town’s development through historical, architectural, economic, and social aspects in order to comprehend the Ottoman context.

This work also tries to describe and analyze the phases of the development of the town’s urban environment, locating the first established nucleus of the town (the intramural area) and following the later phases of urban development (the extramural area) on the outskirts beyond the primal urban zone. This research aims to determine the urban layout and development of the settlement according to its important historical phases. Using travelers’ itineraries, memoirs, and visual materials, this work considers the neighborhoods built at the time of Ottoman arrival in the town and locates them geographically on the peninsula. A review of the literature, including primary resources from archives, travelers’ accounts, and on-site photo documentation, supports this work’s purpose of proving the town’s uniqueness and demonstrating its urban continuity in the Ottoman era. The literature-based findings led to determinations of when and where the town was established after Ottoman subjugation and how it continued its urban development, ultimately permitting answers to the question, “Is there an authentic Ottoman era urban environment in the town of Kavala?” To answer this question, this work researched the urban development and transformations of Kavala from its establishment in the late fifteenth century through five centuries under Ottoman rule, arriving at the era of the expansion of tobacco production in the area and tracing this burgeoning industry’s socioeconomic influences on the town. This is presented through re-elaboration of maps, indicating the most important phases of the urban development throughout the centuries. In order to follow those changes, the work presents three main historical phases4 that coincide with three architectural milestones: the construction of the aqueduct and the complex of Ibrahim Pasha in the sixteenth century; the setting of the foundations and the building of the imaret complex by Mehmed Ali Pasha in the early nineteenth century; and the building of the tobacco depots by the end of the nineteenth century, shaping the settlement’s future.

4

Introduction

Based on the course of the town’s urban transformations, this work presents Kavala’s development in two stages. The first stage concerns the formation of the first intramural nucleus, the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood, located by the harbor and influenced by the hilly side of the peninsula, that later continued to develop into the second intramural area; this second area consisted of Hüseyin Bey, Halil Bey, and Kadi Ahmed Efendi neighborhoods, covering the whole peninsula of the town. The second stage of Kavala’s expansion is the urban growth and development of the town outside the walls in the space referred to as extra muros (outside walls), with Agios Ioannis, Hamidiye, Selimiye, Küçük, Yeni, Dere, Agios Pavlos, and Çaylar neighborhoods and the so-called Kumluk (sandy) area by the sea shore. This work places importance on the “street layout”; through its development we perceive how urban patterns mark different phases of the town’s growth. The street layout is important; it grew out of the morphology of the terrain but also influenced the architecture of the built environment and the individual housing program. To understand the formation of the town, this work examined morphogenetic analyses of the urban site and its street patterns. These elements define the layout plan typologies. The aim of this method is to describe the relationships between the morphology of the area and the man-made environments within it, and one of the theoretical arguments is that the settlement patterns also originate in the social life of the inhabitants.5 This work uses the town of Kavala in Northern Greece as a possible example of an authentic Ottoman era urban environment in the Balkans; Kavala developed, over a period of five centuries, as an Ottoman era settlement that was built on the site of a previous and no longer existing Byzantine town. The discontinuity between the Byzantine and the Ottoman periods allows us to think about Ottoman Kavala as a new settlement not necessarily linked with the previous urban development. In fact, this study does not trace the typical Ottoman pattern of establishing settlements and consolidating power in preexisting built environments. In general, it was a common Ottoman practice to extend power in conquered domains through integrations and overlays in the existing urban environments, slowly adapting to the environment and modifying it into a more “Ottomanized” one. The coercive transfer of entire populations from different religions, from one province to another, within the borders of the huge empire was one of the successful Ottoman strategies to colonialize the newly conquered territories. Even considering the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century and the subsequent integration of Kavala into the new Greek state, the town still kept and preserved its peculiar Ottoman era appearance. This was especially true on the old historic peninsula, where the Muslim population settled and lived for five centuries. This work presents Kavala as an amalgamation of morphological structures, urban fabrics, and networks of interrelated streets. A town was generally subdivided into quarters; major street layouts and urban facilities, residential fabrics, secondary layouts, and parcel divisions all developed within those quarters,

Introduction

5

shaped by ethnic, economic, social, religious, and judicial phenomena. This study of Kavala’s urban form in the Ottoman context may help widen the definition of the Ottoman town itself, perhaps even illuminating specifics of its founding and development of its urban, residential, and private enclaves in the Balkans. It might also explain its role within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, how such a complex ethnic population’s composition contributed to its growth through the centuries and how important was its geographic and geomorphological location. Morphogenetic analysis cast light on the development of the town, its urban site and its street patterns shaping the parceling of the land plots that eventually influenced the development of the dwellings. In order to carry out the research in an appropriate way, this study uses a mixed methodology that includes both qualitative and quantitative analytic methods related to the collected materials. The methodological research related to the analyses of the town and the urban form of Kavala includes an interdisciplinary study in which the connections between the architectural, social, economic, anthropological, cultural, and historical approaches are traced. In general, studies of cities and urban settlements are not a simple task because they require a knowledge of many disciplines and they need proper tools in order to select and interrelate all the collected data. The qualitative element of this work conducted visual analysis of artifacts in situ and archival documents. Data and materials were collected through traveling and residing in the region, and sites and artifacts were visually inspected and documented in the field. Comparison of current findings with past conditions, as documented in artifacts found in archives and libraries, furthered architectural analysis. The archival materials examined still exist in archives in Istanbul, including BOA and TPML, as well as above-mentioned archives and libraries including the Kavala Public Library, Kavala–Thasos Ephorate of Antiquities, the Library of the Faculty of Architecture at the Aristoteles University in Thessaloniki, the Istanbul Technical University Library, IBB Atatürk Library Istanbul, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Gennadius Library, and others. Observations in situ and archival materials have been recorded through field notes, sketches, architectural drawings, on-site measurements, photographic campaigns, and so on. On-site research into Kavala’s dwellings, where accessible, and their current conditions is registered, documented, and used for the purpose of following, on a smaller scale, the town’s residential development in the enwalled town. This study’s quantitative element gathered materials from a survey of old houses still existing in the historical peninsula, choosing a conspicuous and significant number of houses as examples of the main system governing each area. On a bigger scale, the comparison between maps related to other important cities and towns within Ottoman borders helped identify specific patterns of development of the urban texture, starting from the scale of the neighborhoods, or mahalle, to the entire city. The present work is a result of the combination of all these research methods.6 The structure of the book first presents the Ottoman town, and then introduces Kavala for the purposes of comparison. The first chapter considers attempts to

6

Introduction

clarify Kavala’s classification as an Ottoman era town seen through the lens of Orientalism and Balkanism; then it follows the plan and siting of the Ottoman town, taking into consideration geography, topography, and morphology. Moreover, this chapter defines the peculiar urban features of Ottoman era towns and city centers, including the concepts of çarşı, imaret, and mahalle and the important relationships between residential and commercial activities in these areas. Life inside the mahalle and the spatial organization of public and private areas within it are analyzed in detail. The second chapter represents the main core of the book. It focuses more closely on Kavala and studies the town, including a short introduction to its history, dating back to the ancient Greek colony of Neapolis and the Byzantine Christoupolis; this introduction presents evidence of the existence of the town in ancient times and of what remained from that period and its urban development after the Ottoman conquest. This chapter aims mostly to study and analyze concretely the progressive transformation of Kavala under Ottoman rule. In the subchapters, the urban settlement also follows a timeline related to important historical and social milestones that contribute to its establishment and development as an important site on the route of the Via Egnatia. All the phases of the town’s transformation are shown chronologically, beginning with the establishment of the settlement in the early times (1391–1478), just after the conquest; then the development under Sultan Selim I, spanning the period of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and his grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha in the sixteenth century; then the period of further development between the seventeenth and the early eighteenth century; the prosperity under Mehmed Ali Pasha between the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century; and finally the industrialization of the town in the era of the expansion of the tobacco factories between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In each of these subchapters the different phases of the town’s urban development are addressed, including public structures such as the aqueduct, the military fortress, the fountains, mosques, or mescids, markets, and imarets. The street layout of the neighborhoods and the characteristics of the Ottoman era houses are identified. The population expansion and the consequent urbanization of areas outside the original intramural settlement of Kavala and the process of Westernization as result of the Tanzimat reforms, recognizable by different architectural aesthetic expressions, are also considered. The conclusion presents a synthesis of this study of Kavala’s authenticity as an Ottoman era settlement in the Southern Balkans. The final part consists of detailed bibliographical references and an appendix, which includes many original and unpublished archival documents. To summarize: the aim of the work is to analyze and compare all information, data, and materials in order to recognize Kavala as a worthy example of a preserved Ottoman era built environment in the Balkans. From it we can see the authentic development of a small town in the Balkans and today’s Northern Greece. The narrow scope of this work describes and analyzes different phases of the development of the urban environment of the town where the settlement

Introduction

7

was first established and later developed on the outskirts of this site. The goal is to determine the urban layout and the development of the town, as the impact on the urban fabric is still ongoing. Detecting the neighborhoods built upon the arrival of the Ottomans and locating them on the peninsula based on archival documents as well as travelers’ itineraries are among the investigative achievements of this work. In this context, changes continuously occurred in the public and civic structures as well as in the urban fabric throughout the town’s life under the Ottoman rulers. These changes continued during the decades after the Ottomans lost the rule in this region and the town entered within the borders of the Greek nation-state.

Notes 1 Professor Heath Lowry’s findings cover the wide historical period of the Ottoman conquest and rule over the territory of Northern Greece. He has done remarkable work on Kavala’s historical development in its different periods of growth. Using archival tax registers from BOA, as well the Ottoman admiral Piri Reis’s Book of the Seas (Kitab-i Bahriye), he has examined Kavala’s existence as a settlement after the Ottoman conqueror Gazi Evrenos razed the Byzantine town of Christoupolis that previously existed on Kavala’s site. See: Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The conquest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece (Chapter VI, p. 229), Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications. 2 Lowry’s works have offered a historical perspective of most of the territory of Northern Greece, including the built public and religious structures, documenting traces of the Ottoman monuments in Kavala as well as providing us with important archival documents. His works In the Footsteps of the Ottomans, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, and Remembering Ones Roots: Mehmed Ali Pasha of Egypt’s Links to the Macedonian Town of Kavala: Architectural Monuments, Inscriptions & Documents are of invaluable importance for this work and the major source in following the historical events and aspects of the researched area. The Dutch scholar Machiel Kiel also worked on the Ottoman heritage in the Balkans and Northern Greece and was among the first to record these monuments. He published many articles on Kavala as well that will be discussed in this work, such as: Kiel, M. (1996), Ottoman building activity along the Via Egnatia: The cases of Pazargah, Kavala, and Ferecik, in The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule, 1380–1699; Kiel, M. (1992). Remarks on some Ottoman-Turkish aqueducts and water supply systems in the Balkans: Kavalla, Chalkis, Levkas and Ferai/ Ferecik, in De turcicis aliisque rebus: Commentarii Henry Hofman dedicati; Kiel, Machiel (1990), Studies on the Ottoman architecture of the Balkans, Collected studies series, Vol. 326, Variorum. 3 The book, of which the original title in Greek is Η πολη-λιμανι της Καβαλας κατα την περιοδο της τουρκοκρατιας, Πολεοδομικη και ιστορικη διερευνηση (1391–1912), is the only thorough research on the development of the port town of Kavala that focuses on its urban growth during Ottoman rule, mostly related to demographic changes, that is, population increase. The book presents Kavala’s urban growth in three different time periods that are equivalent to the three historical milestones that the town saw during its development under Ottoman rule. 4 These historical phases are marked by the formation of the first nucleus and the complex of Ibrahim Pasha (sixteenth to seventeenth century), followed by the town’s development under the rule of Mehmed Ali Pasha (eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century) and, lastly, the urban transformation that occurred during the era of the expansion of the tobacco industry in the region (mid-eighteenth to nineteenth century).

8

Introduction

5 Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis between the Istanbul house plan types and the plan types of the Ottoman houses in the Panagia district in Kavala (Vergleichende Analyse des Osmanischen Haustyps in Istanbul und dem Panagia Bezirk in Kavala), Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture, 9, 13–27 (www.jccs-a.org/). 6 In this specific case, many field trips to Kavala, where interviews with local authorities and inhabitants contributed to the data, were crucial for this research. On-site research trips related to the identification of the old neighborhoods or mahalles carried over within the contemporary Greek town, and to the Ottoman era houses and their current condition, were registered and documented. Sketches as well as urban plans and maps from the archives of the Municipality of Kavala were used to follow its urban development in the period after Kavala became part of Greece.

1

Formation of Ottoman era towns in the Balkans

Before discussing the identification and meaning of the Ottoman town in general, we should provide some context for the port town of Kavala, our case study in the Ottoman Balkans. Historic Islamic cities and towns show a variety of origins and growth patterns conditioned by external factors such as pre-existing settle ments, selected locations, and prevailing dynastic evolutions. The Ottoman period and the religion of Islam frame this case study, so the Islamic or Muslim city is important to consider in the research. The Muslim city and Muslim town planning fit naturally into the fundamental concept of Orien talism.1 According to Orientalism, anything that arose in a civilization of a Muslim country was absolutely influenced by Islam and automatically Oriental. This was true to varying degrees, and this chapter will elaborate how Muslim the Ottoman Balkans were. In 1978 the American-Palestinian academic Edward Said published Orientalism and shook the waters of the humanities. Combining literary theory and logistical approaches in exploring the supremacy of the “West” and its transformation into a rational society-model of all human histor ical evolution, Said’s book investigated the representation of the “East” by Western scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mapping the genea logy of it and its pervasiveness in literature, philology, journalism, and science. The Ottoman Balkan cities, where Kavala geographically lies, do not fit into this framework. After establishing the term “Balkanization” in her work Imagining the Balkans, Maria Todorova offered a precise analytical distinction between what is Oriental and what is Balkan, questioning whether Orientalism can even be applied to Balkan lands. She asserted that whatever the Balkans were during Byzantium, and during the Roman and the Hellenistic cultures, the eras when the West was characterized as barbarian, based on Said’s interpretation of the Orient2 in Ottoman times they became classified as “Orient”, hence “barbaric”. A cohort of French scholars and intellectual theoreticians offered an interpre tation of the Muslim town or city that stuck. The twentieth-century French orien talist and historian Jean Sauvaget remarked that the Muslim city was not considered as a single entity but as a gathering spot for individuals with conflict ing interests; another remark came from Jacques Weulersse, the French geo grapher of Africa and the Arab world, who pointed to a definition of a city model that was deeply split between hostile communities (Sunni Muslims, Alawites,

10

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

Turks, Christians, and Jews) while conducting studies on Antioch and the Alawite cities of Northern Syria. Based on Weulersse’s studies of the assimila tion and absorption of the Alawite cities in the foreign Sunni environment, the concept of the Arab city as a parasitic body was born. Weulersse says, “In the Orient, the city appears as a foreign body ‘encysted’ in the country like a creation imposed on the countryside it dominates and exploits”. Even the inhabitants appear as a drifting population.3 Cities in the world of Islam have long attracted scholarly attention. Their emergence and development were the subject of debate from the earliest publi cations of the “French Orientalist school” in the first decades of the twentieth century.4 Historians used a variety of methods to study urban centers in the ter ritories once controlled by Muslim rulers. Some studies emphasized the irregu larity of planning and structure in the urban fabric of the “classical” Islamic cities.5 The order found in the Greco-Roman cities, built on an orthogonal grid with a single central core, was supplanted in the Muslim city by irregular winding streets, ending in cul de sacs with generally labyrinthine appearance.6 The characteristics that were attributed to the Islamic or Arab cities in the end had nothing Islamic about them except the concern with privacy or the con straints of neighborhood life.7 Even if we look at segregation and exclusion as the most influential factors in the formation of the neighborhoods (mahalle), generalizing about Islamic cities is neither easy nor accurate because there are many peculiarities among the cities that were developing in the vast Muslim lands. The Arab city, the Irano-Afghan city, or even the Ottoman city, do not have common denominators, though they show a common identity in the organization present in all “Muslim” lands; one example is the central mosque bearing the name of the neighborhood that radiated outward from it like spokes emanating from the hub of a wheel. In all, to accept a classification of a traditional city founded by the population that organized it and lived in it and to acknowledge its local (regional) characteristics (whether Arab, Irano-Afghan or OttomanTurkish) is wiser than calling it an Islamic, Muslim, or Ottoman city.8 However, today’s scholars widely accept the above-mentioned terminologies when refer ring to the cities in the Muslim countries around the Mediterranean or the Arabian Peninsula, or to Iranian-Afghan or Iraqi cities, even though their visual and physical appearances are distinct. Max Weber concludes that even though diversity was the hallmark of European cities, Islamic cities all shared funda mental characteristics as a result of the pervasive role of Islamic law in both public and private life.9 The claims of such scholars were somewhat harsh, stating that Muslim cities were not diverse, or were not equipped with the com munal institutions that ensured development of medieval cities, or even worse, that they were not administered. Maybe this was true of some Arab settlements before they fell to the Ottomans, but this was definitely not the case with Ottoman cities and those that emerged in the Balkans,10 lands dominated by the Orthodox Christian communities of the former Byzantine Empire.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 11

The “Orientalism” of the Ottoman Balkans If, as Said did, we consider any city that emerged in a Muslim country or from Islam to be an Oriental city, then the Ottoman city most definitely contradicts this consideration. This is especially the case with the Ottoman cities that were founded in the settlements already existing in the lands of the Christian Byzan tine Empire and the Balkans. What we see in the Balkans is the continuation of Christian towns founded in lands that were Hellenistic and Roman Christian lands; these lands were later subjugated and occupied by Muslims (Ottomans) who sometimes built new settlements but more often adapted and reconfigured the pre-existing Christian ones they took over. In such cases Balkan towns in Ottoman times became an amalgamation of Christian and Muslim influences. Adaptation and transformation were repeated based on pre-existing patterns. Cities within the Ottoman world established their own visual language by mani festing the signs and the emblems of power and architecture in relation to their inhabitants. Ottoman cities orchestrated meaning, deployed relations of power, and constructed and embodied particular ideologies.11 Cities and their parts work to reflect, legitimize, and sustain the lived realities of their social and religious groups. This is accomplished by distributing indi viduals, objects, surfaces, and boundaries to form arrangements that sustain the relationships between groups. On the other hand, cities are never neutral, and their dynamics can be measured, tracked controlled, and predicted thanks to their urban fabrics.12 The study of the Ottoman city is rooted in the historiography of the Islamic city, which in turn has long been mired in attempts to respond to Max Weber’s exclusion of an Islamic class from his typology of the city in world history. Weber, who defines the “city” as a self-governing commune whose inhabitants possessed a distinct sense of collective identity, argues that such an entity evolved, and thus becomes meaningful, only in Christian Europe. In contrast to the normative European City, Weber characterizes Islamic and other non-European urban conglomerates as lacking the defining tradition of civic culture. He contends that Middle Eastern cities were governed by bureaucratic representatives of an imperial power who were often ethnically and/or linguistically distinct from those they governed. Furthermore, Muslim cities were inhabited by distinct clan or tribal groups who competed with one another, rather than joining together for the common civic good in the creation of an identity that was specifically urban.13 Contrary to Weber’s statement, Ottoman cities were anything but un-diverse or ungoverned, and were certainly defined by a tradition of civic culture. Ottoman cities dotted the vast lands of the Ottoman Empire. Their formation depended on the historical period when they were formed as well as the particular conditions under which they became part of the Ottoman geography. Some prospered outside Islam for centuries until the Ottoman conquest and colonization transformed them

12

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

into Muslim urban centers designed in accordance with Islamic tradition. There were towns that surrendered to the conquerors and towns that were taken by force, towns that first surrendered but later rebelled, and towns that were newly erected Ottoman settlements with no pre-existing incarnations. All these circumstances influenced the further development of the new Ottoman settlements.14 Ottoman settlements, especially in the Balkans, followed various models and patterns of urban development.15 These towns were predominantly established in earlier Byzantine settlements; this was true of Kavala. When the Ottomans took over cities and established themselves as the ruling power in them, one of the first things they did was to convert the inevitable central church to a mosque. However, this was mostly the case with cities that were taken by force; those that surrendered were able to keep their shrines within the old settlements while the Ottomans built their mosques and neighborhoods in close proximity to the previously existing ones. In the conquered Anatolian and Balkan lands most cities were pre-existing settlements, but new ones were built as well.16 Before the conquest of the Balkans in particular, there were already-existing Byzantine cities17 that the Ottomans later conquered. Once they fell to the Ottomans these settlements kept their Byzantine character and appearance.18 The newcomers coexisted in close proximity to the old settlements, sometimes gently penetrating the existing urban fabric, sometimes not touching it at all. Once established, new settlements were held to certain rules of colonization that we barely recognize from our understanding of the Oriental settlements of the Ottoman Empire in the lands of the Arab world. The American historian Jere L. Bacharach formulated three phases that identify major characteristics of Islamic architecture and important administra tive centers.19 Bacharach links these phases with the historical circumstances that surrounded them. According to Bacharach, the first phase of the de novo forma tion of cities in the newly conquered lands used an architectural composition consisting of a mosque with an administrative center facing the qibla side (towards Mecca); this scheme communicated the united religious and political powers of the new conquerors. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, Bachar ach’s second phase, the rulers distanced themselves from their subjects, and the political centers of this period were physically separated from the existing Muslim urban centers.20 Bacharach’s third phase encompasses the period of the Seljuk successor states, who predominantly settled their governance behind the pre-existing walls of Balkan settlements (citadels) like Kavala. These citadels did not typically house Muslim administration. The citadel was not an Islamic invention. It is considered one of the earliest signs of man’s triumph over his environment and a way to naturally protect the settlement and its inhabitants. The Ottomans would use citadels (kale) when they conquered many of the lands of the Mediterranean, but they would also develop other ways of expressing and reinforcing their political, military, and religious role in society.21 In general, these academic categories do not match many specific geographic areas except during the third period when the Frontier Lords (or “March” Lords, Uç Beyler) were advancing and conquering the Balkans, as was true of Kavala.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 13 However, many studies on the generic Islamic or “Oriental” city consider urban environments and vast territories where it is not always possible to define common characteristics or draw general conclusions.22 In the case of the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean world, the concept of the Islamic, or Muslim, city is difficult to capture in a single definition. These lands, with their diverse histor ical backgrounds, elude categorization because they mostly did not follow common patterns of development. The question arises of how much Said’s Orientalism applies to the Balkans and, more narrowly, to Kavala. If, according to the Orientalists, everything that arose from Islam was Oriental, where does this leave the Ottoman Balkans? The lands that were mostly Christian and Orthodox before the Ottoman conquest had a very different history from Said’s Oriental lands. As such, the Balkans – caught between the West and the Saidian East – presented a buffer that neither pole could call full custody of. So where does the Orient begin and where does it end? Are the Balkans Oriental, and, if so, how and to what extent? As the con troversial23 text of St. Sava, the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church who wrote to Irinej in the thirteenth century, has it: At first we were confused. The East thought we were West, while the West considered us to be East. Some of us misunderstood our place in this clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side, and others that we belong exclusively to one side or the other. But I tell you, … we are doomed by fate to be the East on the West, and the West on the East to acknowledge only heavenly Jerusalem beyond us, and here on earth – no one.24 This supposedly alien nature of the Balkans in correlation with both the Orient and the West probably derived from their proximity to the West. This awkward ness of the Balkans was most vividly romanticized and dramatized in the works of Lord Byron.25 A natural question arises: is there actually a need to define the Balkans as the “internal Others” within the Western world? To outside observers the Balkans are so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable, yet those on the inside know them to be diverse and divided. Katherine E. Fleming, renowned professor of Hellenic Culture and Civilization in the Department of History at New York University, says that one of the things that makes the Balkans all so very similar is the fact that they are all concerned with demonstrating how it is that they are different from one another.26 As Ussama Makdisi’s article on Ottoman Oriental ism27 points out, some scholars have distinguished Ottoman Orientalism from “Occidentalism”, a concept defined as “stylized images of the West” rather than of the East.28 Makdisi concludes that, for the most part, studies on Orientalism focused on the European perception and representation of the Orient and how Eastern societies (Ottomans and others) have resisted such portrayals or focused on Occidentalism to counter Orientalism.29 Milica Bakić-Hayden presented yet a different theory, that of the so-called “nesting Orientalism”, whereby she detected the “gradation of the Orients” as a pattern of perception in which Asia

14

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

was more East or “other” than Eastern Europe; Bakić-Hayden outlined a sub category in the gradation of Eastern Europe showing the Balkans that were per ceived to be most “Eastern”.30 It is important to consider how the “others” or, in this case, “Oriental people” perceived themselves within these frameworks. In her review of Ahmet Ersoy’s Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire, Sibel Bozdogan points out: In Ersoy’s account, Ottoman Orientalism (as manifest for example in Osman Hamdi Bey’s “orientalist” paintings or the very idea of an Ottoman Renais sance in late nineteenth century architecture) was neither a trivial stylistic exoticism derivative of European discourses, nor a deliberately “subversive” or “corrective” response to the latter’s stereotypical renderings of the Orient. Rather, such works were inherently ambivalent texts, on the one hand claim ing cultural difference and rootedness in the Empire’s cherished Ottoman/ Islamic past, and at the same time, seeking to re-present this difference in an artistic and scholarly language intelligible to European audiences, so as to claim a place for Ottoman art and architecture within the established “Western canon”. While projecting a definite image of locality, authenticity and aesthetic difference, they also hoped to defy marginality and pure other ness in their effort to inhabit, manipulate and ultimately expand a master discourse on art that was rigidly controlled and dominated by the Western center.31 All these terms created space for the much-needed term Balkanism proposed by Maria Todorova in order to demonstrate that everything falling under it is not quite the same as Orientalism states and especially not as Said perceived it. This positions us to explore the question of Balkan Orientalism; was it in the religion of the new conquerors, the Ottomans, or were they completely detached from the Oriental reference and defined as subcategory? Or was it simply that the lands of the Ottoman Balkans were transitional from Occident towards Orient, no-man’s lands that are no longer Oriental yet not European? Said’s Orientalism applied to the lands that were colonies of the Western empires. This was not the case with the Balkans, where there was an absence of the European colonial presence.32 However, in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury Greece, a sort of – as K. Fleming names it – pseudo imperialism has been voiced by number of scholars. Here we see a different kind of colonialism, imposed on the educational system by the Germans and on the culture by Britain and France. This was more accentuated in Greece since Greece never considered itself part of the Balkans though it belonged to the geographic area. Here, as a result of the pre-Ottoman histories and cultures (Hellenistic, Byzantine), Greece was a region long studied by the Western scholars that in a way made the “meta phoric colonialism” applicable, contrasting with the rest of the Balkans. Greece, and especially its southern parts, was not inhabited by Slavs as were the rest of the Balkan countries that became Communist countries after World War II. Even

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 15 though the majority of people (milet) inhabiting the whole peninsula were pre dominantly Orthodox Christians (before the Ottoman conquest at least), Greeks and Greece were somehow influenced by this pseudo colonialism that shaped its further development. It is probably due to these circumstances that Greece had a quite different history especially during the last century under the Ottoman rule onward. In this context Kavala as part of Northern Greece and part of the Ottoman Balkans had its own specific development. And even though this part of the world was seen as Oriental by Western travelers and scholars, especially those of the nineteenth century, it actually had very little or no relation to Said’s concept of Oriental. In such manner the case study of this book, if needed, could be categorized under the term of Ottoman era Balkan town rather than Oriental town – a town born in Christian lands, becoming part of the lands of Ottoman Islam, but with a touch of strong local culture, tradition, and religious continuity. In this sense it is difficult to apply Said to settings that did not share particular circumstances, as to, let’s say, Napoleons Egypt. The Balkan territories have had a very different history from those that Said’s Orientalist theories address, so Said’s critique of the Balkans is less than compelling.33 Said’s Orientalism in general could not be applied to the Ottoman Balkans and, specifically, could not be applied to Kavala. Kavala’s history was strongly linked to its previous, non-Muslim history and it had its own unique pattern of development. The site was a stage where native entwined with foreign, and where foreign became native. The amalgamation of layers of history and urban milieu lay a specific foundation for the particular development of this town during the Ottoman era in the Balkans. Orientalism, Ottoman Orientalism, Balkanism, colonialism, and imperialism shaped Kavala. It was a town with Christian Byzantine origins, though very little remains from that period. It was the site of the apostle Paul’s first landing on his journey to spread Christianity to Europe. It was a town that had fervently believed it would become an Ottoman city, with new rulers and a new dominant religion, Islam. It was a town founded on previous Christian dominion and utter most development in a land that in the nineteenth century was seen as Oriental by the Western travelers and yet had very little to do with what we know as Saidian Orientalism. Kavala did grow to be an Ottoman era Balkan town, Eastern to the eye of the Western beholder yet Western to the eye of the far Asian one. This was especially visible in the nineteenth century when the Ottoman Empire underwent a profound transformation as the Tanzimat34 reforms allowed Western influences to infiltrate the empire, affecting not only the histor ical terms of the town’s future development but also the terms of its urban growth within the new historical and political reality.

The multi-layered face of the Ottoman Balkan town The development of medieval European or Islamic towns in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean cannot be compared with the development of medieval

16

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

European or Islamic towns in the Middle East, Asia, or even North Africa. In fact, the evolution of towns and cities in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterra nean passed through rapid and constant changes in history, characterized from the towns’ beginnings by multicultural and multiethnic elements. In approaching the past from a new perspective, we must consider all the fragmentations and overlays of civilizations, customs, and religions to understand these changes. This is especially true in the historical field and with respect to complex events that modified urban culture in the Balkan Peninsula and the Eastern Mediterra nean.35 The Levantine Maurice Cerasi was one scholar who addressed questions about the Islamic city in these regions. Cerasi evaluated changes in the urban settlements and local architecture, convincingly identifying the characteristics and differences of Ottoman cities and towns in the Levant and the Balkans36 and defining the distinctive characteristics of Mediterranean Islamic cities and towns, produced for the most part by cultures that were simultaneously active.37 For the populations living or settling in these cities interacted and cohabited with other cultures38 beyond the pervasive and slowly formed historical stratifications. This is certainly true for the Hellenistic-Roman period and more or less true for the Christian (late Roman and Byzantine) period. And in some cases it is true also of the beginning of the Islamic-Ottoman period through the first three decades of the twentieth century. Around the Mediterranean, cities like Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Alexandria, Izmir, and Beirut were not just cosmopolitan lounges (most often highlighted by publicity) and not just multiethnic in their social constitution, but cities deeply multicultural and multireligious in their formation.39 It is an accepted truth that the art and culture of every nation are influenced by the art and culture of earlier and neighboring civilizations, and the Ottomans, even the Seljuks before them, were no exception.40 The “Ottoman-Levantine” city, according to Cerasi, “cannot simply be ascribed and encompassed in the main historic categories (‘Islamic city’, ‘Oriental city’), but should be analyzed through the differences or the boundary’s limits that we can refer to the studies on the comparative cultural geography”.41 Unlike old interpretations of the generic Islamic city, the research on the Mediterranean area, especially the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkan Peninsula and Anatolia, had always reflected a multiculturalism springing from diverse residential populations and coexisting religions.42 A study by Machiel Kiel tells us that from urban and architectural points of view, the Ottomanization of these territories over five centuries was complex, articulated, and extended. Protracted Ottoman presence in the lands resulted in a sort of collective erasure of the Ottoman-Turkish memory43 that makes it difficult today to obtain information concerning Ottomanization. Maurice Cerasi, importantly, recognized some architectural schemes and fea tures in the urban texture of Ottoman cities that can be tracked in areas where Ottoman administration ruled for centuries. He was able to show these ele ments combining at a territorial scale to become symbolic of the new Muslim rules and society:

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 17 The wooden pitched roof house, the domed mosque, the peculiar layout of the urban texture, the çarşı or market, the neat separation between economic and residential functions, the urban composition open towards nature are all together rarely denied rule of what we can call the typical Ottoman city that has prevailed for almost three centuries in the Anatolian region (with the exception of the oriental and part of the central plateau areas), the Thrace region, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the big cities in Serbia and, in a minor and limited way, the south and the coasts of what is now Romania.44 In addition to observing house types and construction techniques used in the empire’s many cities, towns, and small villages, Cerasi and the French historian Gilles Veinstein,45 head of the Turkish and Ottoman department at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, presented similarities and differences among the houses, their owners’ multiethnic backgrounds, and their interactions within Ottoman society. The borders of these areas were not always dominated by a pre-eminent culture, as the Ottoman Muslims were tolerant of the cultural differences of the peoples they subjugated and assimilated and tended to leave them in place. Indeed, the Ottoman view was that the amalgama tion of cultures and religions undoubtedly enriched the provinces and benefited their administration in the best possible way. If we look at the cultural geography of the whole system from the point of view of the individual factors characterizing the urban model, the bound aries of the area can obviously change. This is the case with the spread of timber construction techniques and the house with jutting elements and pitched roof that extends beyond the previously described borders, reaching even the Northwest in the Caucasus and in some ways in the Caspian regions. The area of absolute domination of this type in the countryside as well as in urban centers narrows to Macedonia, to the Sofia-Edirne-Istanbul axis, to the Northwest Anatolian Central Aegean, to the North Anatolian, Bosnia Herzegovina, in the main cities of Greece, the Stara Planina (Balkan Mountains) of Bulgaria. In the Western, Southern, and Central Anatolia, in the Danube system and in the Caucasus this urban model is present in considerable quantities but coexists with other types of local origins.46 Due to their geographic and strategic location and their function as a link between Asia and Europe, the lands of Rumelia (today’s Turkish and Greek Thrace and the Balkans),47 have always been important. In every historical period these lands have been used for passage between East and West, attaining a peculiar duality in that they were viewed as West to the East and East to the West. In the Ottoman era, three large main roads connected Istanbul, the Ottoman capital, with central Europe, the Balkans, and the regions north of the Black Sea. These roads played a fundamental role in relations with Western powers, especially regarding trade and military and diplomatic strategy.48

18

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

The bigger towns in the new Ottoman-conquest territories in the Balkans took on administrative importance, which turned some of them into important seats of Ottoman power. The requisite architecture followed. Sofia became the capital of Rumelia and witnessed the construction of a governor’s residence as well as administrative offices. At the beginning of the fifteenth century the town became an important center of agricultural and craft trade, recognizable by its central bazaar, with attendant caravanserais and guild seats. The quarters of the Chris tian Greeks, Armenians, Ragusans, and Hebrew Jews, the Ottoman millet,49 sep arated each ethnicity from the others and from the rest of the city in organized neighborhoods that existed up until the end of the Ottoman domination.50 Sofia, no longer contained by its medieval walls, expanded beyond them and developed outside them into a typical urban layout of a central square with five arteries spreading into a labyrinth of irregular unpaved streets forming smaller square-like centers usually accentuated by a fountain, trees and the inevitable Turkish coffee “bar” in the middle. These features gave them typical “Ottoman” physiognomy, which was accentuated by other – even more recognizable – architectural elements such as domes and cylindrical minarets, bazaars accompanied by caravanserais, complexes of buildings of worship (mosques, medreses, libraries, and dervish lodges), and the official governor’s residence (konak).51 Not much different were towns in Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Greece, where numerous mid- and small-sized centers were formed through the process of Ottoman repopulation as well as the activation of admin istrative, cultural, and religious structures. Towns that preserve significant numbers of these elements are spread all over the Balkans: in Kosovo, Prishtina, Prizren, and Pech; in Albania, Berat with its fort, Gjirokastro, Kruje, and Korcha; in Macedonia, Tetovo and Skopje (Üsküp), where from 1520 to 1530 the Muslim population was triple the size of the Christian population; in Sarajevo, a capital town of great importance under the governance of Gazi Husrev Bey; then Travnik, Mostar, and Pochitelj.52 According to Florescu Radu, a RomanianAmerican historian, the Ottoman presence was visible in the towns of Romania as well, except that here the Ottomans positioned their garrisons and structures such as mosques, residences, and fortifications along the banks of the river Danube53 rather than in the urban centers. The port towns of the Ottoman Empire were different. In this book there are intentionally no mentions of Constantinople-Istanbul, due to the scale of the city and its function as the power center of the whole empire. Thessaloniki and Izmir, in the Balkans and Anatolia respectively, were the other two important port gates of the Eastern Mediterranean and two strategically important cities for the Otto mans. According to Maurice Cerasi, We must place in a separate group the two great international and cosmo politan ports of the Aegean: Thessaloniki (Selanik) and İzmir (Smyrna or Smirne). Their commercial role is known and the urban stratifications that take place in both the cities and their architectural image are elusive and dif ficult to compare not only with the Anatolian city but also even with the

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 19 Balkan cities of the early 19th century also marked by the presence of many similar ethnic populations. Commercial functions and a similar cosmopoli tanism, but with less consistency, take over in the course of the nineteenth century as they do in other port cities such as Rusçuk, Varna, Samsun.54 Izmir had enjoyed continuity from the time of the Seljuks and eventually was transformed into an Ottoman Islamic town with Friday mosques and mescids at its neighborhoods’ cores. The town’s prosperity was mostly due to its position on the shores of the Aegean Sea. Eventually it became a great port trade city that kept its multiethnic character due to the presence of Armenian, Jewish, Greek, Venetian, and Croat merchants. All these different ethnic groups lived in sepa rate neighborhoods positioned next to or behind one another, creating the city’s multiethnic urban milieu and driving trade. All these ethnic neighborhoods were oriented towards the bazaar and the port,55 the focal points of the town. Except for the conversion of some of its churches into mosques and the con struction of Turkish baths and dervish lodges, Thessaloniki maintained its Byz antine character for a long period of time.56 It leaned against the hills and the Heptapyrgion fortress (Yedi Kule) that dominated the citadel, its garrison of janissaries soon replaced by an Ottoman era neighborhood (see Figure 1.1). This neighborhood was the only one to survive the fire of 1917 that destroyed a great part of the urban works in the city, making space for urban regeneration that included a wide and regular road network amongst the Byzantine monuments.

Figure 1.1 Eighteenth-century drawing of Thessaloniki with its walls and fortress. Source: registered in BOA under PLK 1339.

20

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

Unfortunately, this regeneration ended up almost completely erasing what was left of the Ottoman city.57 During the Middle Ages there were several significant Byzantine towns in the lands of today’s Macedonia and Greece that survived the Slavic invasions, becoming seats of ecumenical patriarchies: Thessalonica, and such Thracian and Greek coastal towns as Corinth Mesembria, Stobi, Heracleia, Uzusa, Ainos, Philippi, Amphipolis, and Edessand.58 Most of these cities had their roots planted deep in the Roman era. Their urban patterns and build programs were typical of the ancient Greco-Roman approach to urban planning and development.59 These cities, mostly distributed along the left arm (Sol Kol) of the ancient Via Egnatia,60 met different fates during the Ottoman conquest in the late fourteenth century. Some were abandoned even before the conquest (Heracleia, Stobi); others tried to resist the Ottoman invasion. There were two kinds of conquered cities in Northern Greece: those that surrendered and those that did not surrender. Those that surrendered did so on terms that included permissions to retain their places of worship, their properties, and their rights to live within the city walls. Most of the towns in Northern Greece during the Ottoman conquest surrendered.61 On the other hand, Kavala and Thessaloniki62 (both in different time periods) were taken by force and therefore developed a very different history. Those towns that surrendered were transformed into Ottoman towns with their typical build program, while those that did not were leveled to the ground, their fortresses destroyed. However, the Ottomans did establish and build cities de novo. These mostly originated on the main postal routes as rest stops with post stations (menzil);63 later, with the Ottoman settling policy, they were inhabited and eventually developed into cities. Most pre-existing Byzantine cities conquered in the fourteenth century in the lands of today’s Northern Greece were fortress cities; most of them surren dered, therefore they had a history different than if they had been conquered. Kavala (Byzantine Christoupolis) clearly did not surrender, which is why it was destroyed and later rebuilt. Other towns such as Didymoteicho (Dimetoka), Serres, Komotini (Gümülcine), Drama, even Thessaloniki (Selanik) at the time of the first conquest, surrendered and were given guarantees for security.64 And so the Ottoman cities that formed almost entirely outside the established city walls did so around a nucleus of a Friday mosque. Here the Ottoman conquerors did not convert churches because the first structures they built upon conquest were Friday mosques. No churches were converted in Didymoteicho, nor in Serres, Komotini, or Drama, because those churches were all within the walls of their cities. That is why places like Didymoteicho even today still have two Byzantine churches within the city walls. The Ottoman Muslims stepped outside the walls, sometimes in close proximity to the already-existing settlement, building a Friday mosque surrounded by a public bath (hamam), a Muslim theological school (medrese), and caravanserai; this complex became the nucleus of the new Ottoman city, coexist ing with the old, but still separate from it. The Ottoman tendency during their conquests not to build new towns, instead settling in pre-existing ones was true in most cases in Anatolia. However, this

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 21 was not always true in the Balkans, where we follow the formation of numerous new towns along the most important trade and military routes.65 The Atatürk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Heath W. Lowry has drawn attention to the role played in the fourteenth-century Ottoman conquest of the Balkans by the March Lords (Uç Beys), among whom was Gazi Evrenos.66 Lowry examines the architectural remains of the building programs that fol lowed subjugation to show that conquests were accompanied by extensive infra structure development. Chief among these was the construction of dervish lodges/soup kitchens (zäviye-imarets), designed to meet the needs of travelers, the poor, and the dervishes who provided the backbone of the forces they com manded.67 Establishing such structures laid the groundwork for development of new settlements that would grow in size. Kavala differs from other settlements. We know for sure that the pre-existing settlement of Christoupolis was leveled to the ground by the army of Gazi Evrenos, probably before 1391. Anything that existed from Byzantine times was gone, except for some parts of the fortress later rebuilt between 1512 and 1521 by Selim I. But Kavala is not the only conquered city on the Via Egnatia’s Sol Kol. Among the new towns that were built along this route, Thessaloniki shared similar archi tectural and urban features with Kavala. While most of the towns along this route were settlements that the Ottomans built de novo (Yenice-i Karasu, Yenice-i Vardar, Yenisehir,68 or today’s Giannitsa, Genisea, Larisa, respectively), Kavala, and Thessaloniki dated back far beyond Byzantine times. Kavala and Thessaloniki in different periods were both taken by force. In the second conquest in 1430,69 Thessaloniki did not surrender and was treated accordingly. It is important to note that both Kavala and Thessaloniki are the only two cities in Northern Greece where the Ottomans settled inside the city walls. These two cities were considered to be frontier cities because they were on water. Every place else the Ottomans built outside the walls. This is easier to understand in the case of Thessaloniki, since the fortress walls were high and massive. In the case of Kavala, the walls were not so weighty, so Ibrahim Pasha built the lower walls. So, only in these two cities did the Ottomans build on Byzantine foundations. We know quite a bit about the city of Thessaloniki in the Byzantine era, but we know little of Christoupolis except what Schreiner70 tells us: the town was taken, then destroyed and the popu lation scattered. This the usual treatment the Ottomans gave to cities they took by force. We know the population surrendered in all the other cities in today’s North ern Greece. Didymoteicho surrendered more than once, sometimes taken by trick ery, other times openly. Serres, Drama, and Thessaloniki in 1387 all surrendered and therefore had a different narrative than the port cities of Kavala and Thessalo niki in the conquest of 1430.71 There is continuity in the urban development of settlements after conquest. In the Ottoman era, building was not always above pre-existing settlements. In some cases, new neighborhoods were built next to pre-existing ones from previous eras and settled by previous inhabitants with different cultural and reli gious backgrounds.72 The result was an overlap of structures, cultures, and religions.

22

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

These new Ottoman era towns in Rumelia were government-founded. They had all the necessary communal institutions that were the first to be established in pre-existing settlements. However, such institutions were also established in the newly formed settlements and towns along the main routes of the widely expanding empire, especially in the lands of the Balkans and so-called Rumelia. One commonality between these cities in the Ottoman Balkans and the cities in the rest of the Arab world was the natural pattern of development of streets guided by the terrain; the result was irregular winding streets terminating in cul de sacs. In Rumelia’s road system, the western highway (the “Left Road” or Sol Kol in Turkish) was the road to Greece and Italy from Istanbul. It follows the coast of the Sea of Marmara, crosses Tekirdağ, Malkara, and Feres (Ferecik) to the higher lands of Didymoteicho and Komotini (Gümülcine), passes Kavala, then crosses Elefterupoli (Pravişte), Lanzaka, and Larissa before branching; one branch leads south to Athens and the Peloponnesus, and the other continues to Durres and the Albanian coast of the Ionian Sea. In ancient times this road, named Via Egnatia, was a military road built and used by the Romans. Later it was developed by the Byzantines, eventually becoming the main commercial road to directly connect the capitals of the Roman Empire, Rome, and Constantinople, through the lands of today’s Albania, Greece, Macedonia, and Turkey. To reach Rome from Constantinople the road tra versed important inland urban centers, except that at Kavala it descended to the coast of the Aegean Sea where the high hills of the Rodopi Mountains meet the shores of the sea. The route then extended west, reaching the Adri atic Sea in Durres (present-day Albania) and continuing across the Adriatic until it reached the town of Egnatia, a small port on the Apulian coast between Brindisi and Bari. From there the road continued to the capital.73 These roads were important in establishing and maintaining Ottoman rule along these routes. Repairing and maintaining the road network and building new roads, the Ottomans invested in the pre-existing or newly founded towns along these routes. Ottoman pious foundations (vakıfs) stimulated town growth and sponsored much-needed infrastructures such as new roads, bridges, and aqueducts. During the Ottoman time, the unquestionable growth of urbanism and increasing territorial infrastructures like bridges, aqueducts, and roads, both in Anatolia and in the Balkan Peninsula, constituting an imposing social process, reflects a state policy that relies on large urban centers to adminis ter and acculturate the territory emphasized by the Ottoman ideology of the foundation of towns, even though most of the time the towns were not really new but simply rearranged according to their needs.74 The sea routes were the other important routes. The Mediterranean in the seven teenth and (especially) eighteenth centuries was considered a territory and was a theater for ongoing military campaigns. Armies as well as corsairs lurked in its

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 23 waters, constantly attacking boats anchored in the ports or travelers moving along land routes that sometimes descended to the seashores. Because the sea routes were also trade routes used by merchants and travelers exchanging goods between the West and East, the port towns and towns on the land roads held great importance. A well-established network of social structures developed along the roads or in proximity to the harbor towns. Inns known as caravanserais or hans were built to welcome travelers and tradesmen; soup kitchens, public baths, and of course mosques all contributed to the welcome. Built as charitable endowments by important Ottoman figures through their pious foundations, these institutions were sometimes grouped together in grand complexes or külliye built along the roads at staging posts, that often resulted in emergence of new towns.75 Considering the hierarchy related to the dimension of the settlement, even a strict distinction between city (şehir) and village (kasaba) is not maintaina ble; it is rather conditioned by the administrative role that was attributed to the settlement and changes over time in the documents and in the chron icles, in which indications are given for cities that have several hundred houses whereas other times large villages with two thousand inhabitants are defined as villages.76

Plan and siting of the Ottoman town We have seen that upon their conquest of the territories of Northwest Anatolia and the Balkans, the Ottomans encountered pre-existing indigenous cultures that had produced towns that the conquerors then added to and adapted to their own purposes. But the Ottomans also built new settlements. The lands the Ottomans conquered in Anatolia, and especially the Balkans, had settlements founded by the Byzantine and previous empires. So, questions arise: To what extent were the Ottomans Byzantine? What kind of settlements did they establish in these conquered lands? Dimitri Korobeinikov concludes that the Ottomans had strong ties with the Byzantine Christian population, but: Despite many Christians in the administration, members of the Byzantine aristocracy in the Ottoman ruling class […], and landholding and taxation organized on the Byzantine system, the Ottomans showed astonishingly little interest in Byzantine culture, which was by nature urban.77 This leaves us to conclude that the pre-Ottoman and non-Muslim cities exerted strong influence on the formation of the Muslim ones. Based on this, it is acceptable to speak of both Ottomanization and Ottoman era as a design period, since the urban forms were both inherited and recon structed and, more rarely, newly established. Analyzing the network of land roads the Ottomans implemented, especially in the Balkan region, the urban historian Luda Klusakova states:

24

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans The Ottomans conquered a territory in the European continent that had certain traditions of urban settlement, no matter how unbalanced or weak. The towns in this territory were incorporated into a new urban network that fitted the needs of Ottoman society. Just like Christian towns, their towns functioned as centers of administration, military force, commerce and crafts, but otherwise they differed profoundly. Ottoman cities reflected a special social system based on religion and on the direct state control of the reli gious community.78

The architect and historian Pierre Pinon79 compares the Anatolian cities shaped during the Ottoman period and their Islamic-Arabic and medieval European counterparts. Pinon examines their streets, parcels (lots) and housing units and proposes a typology of urban texture based on street patterns, grid density, and built density. The first morphological characteristic of early Ottoman towns was the absence of walls. This absence freed city plans from an imposed frontier that limited expansion and dictated that streets pass through gates, a tradition main tained in walled towns before the Ottomans took them over.80 This absence of town walls was not often seen in the Balkans, where many towns and cities adhered to the urban layout seen within city or town walls, with streets passing through gates positioned towards the main land roads leading to the bigger administrative capitals (Thessaloniki, Kavala, Ohrid, etc.). Even from their initial establishment in the Balkans, Ottoman towns followed a specific and consistent development pattern: residential neighborhoods grew around a complex which could include mosques, hospices, caravanserais, and high educational colleges medreses as well as imarets. These imarets, literary soup kitchens,81 were organized as vakıf,82 pious foundations that consisted of several buildings grouped around a mosque and financially supported by an endowment. As Dr. Aptullah Kuran, a Turkish scholar and expert on Ottoman architecture observed: The Ottomans did not leave the physical development of their cities to chance: through the promotion of community services, they created a con genial urban environment for people to live in. An orderly expansion of residential areas was accomplished by means of building complexes called külliye.83 Such pious foundations will play a big role in the development of the town of Kavala and will be elaborated on in the next chapter. The town in the Ottoman Empire was essentially formed of morphological structures: urban fabrics consisting of quarters, road layouts, and urban facilities; residential fabrics; and secondary road layouts and parcel divisions. The Ottoman urban morphology was announced by the density of the settlements, the constant quest for light and a view in their structures, and the position of the houses on the streets. This morphology resulted from garden lots set along the isometric curves of the plots’ siting.84 In the Balkans, the Ottoman town was

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 25 often a pre-Byzantine or Hellenistic city that over time underwent transforma tions or extensions. Understanding Ottoman era towns in the Balkans entails identifying the diverse origins of these towns before the Ottoman conquest and also describing and interpreting the developments that followed the conquest to the beginning of the twentieth century.85 At the moment of Ottoman penetration, the Balkans already contained pre existing urban centers with active commercial and religious functions. Some of them continued to exist through the Ottoman period, but those that did not were abandoned; eventually devastated by time, they became secondary locations. The Ottomans and the villages and small towns they conquered and occupied, especially those on important land or sea routes, formed new agglomerations. This came about as the Ottomans introduced military garrisons and relocated Ottoman representatives to serve the authorities in these localities, thus populat ing or repopulating them. By precipitating ethnic reorganizations and transfor mations in this manner, the Ottoman administrations established rule over the towns in the Balkans.86 These remained in Ottoman hands for around five hundred years. They had administrative systems87 designed and organized to protect commercial routes and commercial development through a regular network of caravanserais along the roads leading to Istanbul. They also gradu ally took on “Islamic” character in their demographic structure as well in their physical structures, which were largely preserved even after the demise of Ottoman power.88 These preserved structures were mostly seen inside the enwalled zones of settlements like Ohrid, Kavala, and Thessaloniki. From the end of the eighteenth until the twentieth century, however, most of these towns came under the influence of Western urban models as a result of the newly intro duced Tanzimat reforms in the empire and these were seen in new neighbor hoods built outside the “old” enwalled settlements. Here, new districts developed that followed urban grid patterns and boasted wider orthogonal streets and larger, open areas. The Ottoman urban politic generally focused on creating multiethnic cities and efficiently providing riches to the empire through trade. Yet the Aegean port towns and the ports of the great islands of the Eastern Mediterranean never wit nessed any urban planning or public projects outside fortifications and port struc tures. Most of the time the nature of the sites and pre-existing historical structures determined the main characteristics of these port towns. The additions of typical Islamic architectural elements were not sufficiently integrated into the context of these districts to significantly affect their urban texture.89 Ottoman urban development in Greece and Macedonia followed ancient and Byzantine precedents of minimum size requirements for structures to take in adequate sun and air along pre-established transit routes. These routes followed the Hippodamian grid plan of an ancient city. Fire safety measures set conditions such as cantilevered floors open to the street. Adherence to the grid produced similarities in urban neighborhoods and housing. However, in the cases of Kavala and Thessaloniki this grid system is only visible in the areas below the acropolis. In the flat lands by the sea Thessaloniki’s grid system was legible but

26

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

farther up the hill and towards the fortress, the grid was abandoned where the streets organically followed the morphology of the terrain. Here, fully adapting to the topography of the site, neighborhoods included roads that varied in width according to the limits of space. The narrow streets of the neighborhoods with houses located on their both sides created interesting visual perspectives.90 William Monter’s study of the organization of medieval towns and territories and the cultural exchange between European cities reveals that medieval towns were built to satisfy the specific needs of the time, such as trade with other towns.91 Cities moreover are not inert physical objects, but are capable of pro ducing energy and culture: Cities contain, attract and transform cultures of many kinds. Urban cultures, as patterns or gestalts of human manners, beliefs, ideas and emotions, are often embodied in and reinforced by material symbols and the circulation of goods. They encapsulate and can integrate the individual cultures of neigh borhoods and of professionals and social groups, yet they also offer possib ilities for the survival and reinforcement of various forms of minority identity. Many of these complex relationships are determined or made pos sible by commercial contacts and exchange. Cities thus play a crucial role in cultural exchange as transfer points between economic and cultural zones.92 Monter’s editors Donatella Calabi and Stephen Turk Christensen refer to the medieval towns as “organisms” in the sense that, like living organisms, cities are constantly changing in time and the dynamic aspects of a city must be con sidered in order to understand it. The city as “organism” can be influenced by forces that give shape to the urban environment as a whole and offer a more complete picture of it. As men tioned before, both urban and smaller-scale structural contexts, and social, demo graphic, geographic, and architectural aspects are equally important in analyzing and understanding the city as a living organism. Its formation, considering all the overlapping historical layers, is a process that undergoes major transforma tions: political, ideological, economic, and social, as well as the form and the character of the lives shaped in different environments.93 When it comes to Ottoman era towns/cities, the aspect of “living organism” was intensified and manifested in a specific manner: within the Ottoman town there was not one single center but many, due to clear spatial division of urban functions (resid ence, commerce, and religion). This led to different centers within the town, such as those organized around commerce (the çarşı and the bazar, or markets) and religion (mosques, churches, synagogues, and the monumental multi functional complexes or külliye).

The core of the Ottoman town In the Balkans, the Ottomans either built new towns or moved into pre-existing town spaces that they altered over time; in either case, there was no prescribed

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 27 plan for the town’s (continued) development. The Christian quarters of Balkan towns, for instance, generally passed into Ottoman hands undamaged and were subsequently adapted to Muslim requirements. Adaptations included division of space into public and private realms; public space was religious (mosques, smaller mosques, and dervish lodges or tekkes), governmental, and commercial (the bazaar or çarşı). In the center of the town the neighborhoods (mahalles) sur rounded the mosques, which were large state-controlled places of worship, the center of the community’s religious practice, and the site of Friday prayer ser vices. The smaller mosques, the mescids, were operated privately by various groups within the society. Minorities within the Ottoman town were always integrated in its main structure, but each community grew around the structures that identified its beliefs, such as churches for the Christian communities and synagogues for the Jewish communities. Delving into urban scale when analyzing a city/town, we find architectural structures that set the foundations of each town. As Spiro Kostof states, citadels, and walled areas were common to towns of every culture.94 The citadel or fort, or kale, was always positioned at the highest point of the settlement (for the best view of approaching enemies) and related to the walls: The relation of the citadel to its town will depend to a large extent on the topography, as well as the political and military situation. It might be helpful to identify two phases in this Middle Eastern model – without necessarily implying an evolutionary pattern. In the first phase the citadel is the town. There is only one circuit of defense. To the degree that this citadel-town attracts people to itself, there will develop a settlement on the adjacent sloping site, which in time will have to be contained within its own ring of walls. This is the second phase. The lower town will now become the main residential core, and the citadel will be restricted to the role of an adminis trative center. […]. It will now be a tight, well-defined unit at the edge of a sprawling urban form, the main portion of which is the low-lying residential and commercial quarter.95 The organization of Ottoman street patterns affected the formation of residential dwellings. The Ottoman era house plan was framed by the street that directly influ enced its architectural layout. Houses had asymmetrical floor plans because of their positioning on the street, and they evolved freely from the street inwards, forming cul de sacs. The streets determined the division of residential plots and the ground floor layouts of the residences.96 Figure 1.2 shows how the ground floor layout of each house and its interface with the street was typically on an axis per pendicular to the flow of traffic. Due to irregular ground floors, houses were posi tioned on the street’s edge and blended with their land plots.97 Finally, a specific characteristic of Ottoman era town morphology was that residential plots some times included a garden, where permitted. During the period of Tanzimat, these conventions, as well as house plans and aesthetics, drastically changed with the introduction of new Western models of urban and residential development. Grid

28

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

Figure 1.2 Town morphology of the residential urban fabric of Sarajevo, second half of nineteenth century. Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from Cerasi, 1998.

systems and blocks with wider streets replaced organic and geomorphologic pat terns terminating in dead ends. The houses adopted a Westernized look, applying the neoclassical and eclectic styles that the new bourgeoisie brought to the lands of the slowly vanishing empire. Under such conditions Kavala, a town in Rumelia (part of the Ottoman Empire), was formed. Kavala’s development in Ottoman times was structured by several urban layers occurring in the following order: fortification–public struc tures–neighborhoods–street layouts–housing program. The conquest of the area and the reconstruction of the fortress in response to the need for defense begins the sequence; next, water was needed for the fortress and was provided by the

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 29 construction of the second public structure, the aqueduct. The presence of the fort (guaranteeing protection) and the aqueduct (bringing life for the sustenance of the entire population) established rich soil for the growth of an urban settle ment. When the town walls completed the function of protection the urban area developed, following the wall line until the middle of the nineteenth century. Since the Muslim religion became one of the core determinants of the Ottoman urban morphology and history, this work follows the settlement’s development through the works of existing pious foundations and then proceeds to the secondary development of neighborhoods and streets in accordance with the patterns of daily life resulting from residential growth around established cores. Analysis of the urban settlement of Kavala traces its so-called intra muros development inside the town walls, and later its extra muros expansion outside the town walls into an area without fortification or other barriers. The distinguishing feature of the Ottoman town was the organization of each of its mahalles (neighborhoods) around its own central mosque and/or bazaar or çarşı. A single central core did not exist for each Ottoman town. Rather, each neighborhood had its own “core”, and this was the mosque from which the neighborhood radiated outward. The neighborhood always bore the name of the mosque and near it there was always a fountain or çeşme and sometimes a syca more tree. The town’s neighborhoods were themselves organized around another core, their mosque or a smaller mosque called mescid. The ethnic quarters of the town were a representational constant in the face of rapid spatial and demo graphic changes. Their continuous presence offers significant insights into Ottoman notions of urban order.98

System of mahalle and street layout The two most important institutions in Ottoman society were the family and the religion. These were the two poles of the social life of the common man. The vital cell of urban society was the family unit and the quarter or neighborhood (mahalle) was literally made up of family units in houses along streets. The family defined the mahalle and the conjunction of the mahalle and its core reli gious structure (mosque or a smaller mosque) created the most important unity of the town. The mosque or the mescid was the spiritual center of the neighbor hood and the house was the center of family life; together these provided the socio-religious aspect of the town. The neighborhoods were usually divided along religious and ethnic lines, but there were also neighborhoods where various disparate religious and ethnic groups cohabited. This was most notice able in the commercial districts of the towns.99 The neighborhood was the building block of the Ottoman residential fabric. Again and again it was created when a homogeneous community of new citizens, such as immigrants from the same village led by a leader or founder, settled in an area of the town and began to build houses around the religious structure at the center of their community. This process was in use not only among Muslim citizens but also among Christian and Jewish ones. As soon as it was founded,

30

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

the neighborhood presented a high degree of cultural, ethnic, social, and profes sional homogeneity among its inhabitants. The mahalle was clearly defined as a unity but lacked a geometrical form and urban organization.100 The houses within the organic distribution of the neigh borhoods created the physical form of the town, and the organic disposition of the streets of the neighborhoods directly influenced the appearance and form of the houses. Urban voids, characterized by orchards and cemeteries, replaced town squares within the urban fabric. Cul de sacs or blind alleys, which are characteristic of the Muslim towns, facilitated the concept of family privacy spe cific to the Islamic world. These were streets without outlets, lined with houses where wives and daughters were safe from prying eyes. The house became the Muslim woman’s place of refuge from the outside world, the place where she was able to create her separate and secluded space (see Figure 1.3). The wooden Ottoman house was a light structure of limited height and an overall dynamism lent by its bay window projections or cumba and the move ment of its flaps. It was the base from which monumental buildings emerged.

Figure 1.3 The cul de sac and the morphology of the residential urban fabric in Safranbolu. Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from Cerasi, 1998.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 31 These were distinguished from civic structures by solid masonry ashlar stone work or alternating stone and brickwork. Their stereometric volumes were sur mounted with lead-covered domes. The urban fabric of the mahalle included all the facilities providing optimal life conditions, including the small mosque or mescid, the primary school or mekteb, and a public fountain or çeşme. The great Turkish historian of the Ottoman Empire Halil Inalcik offers what is probably the fundamental definition of the mahalle, stating that it had its own identity, with communities that were settling around their places of worship, whether those were church, mosque, or synagogue. The citizens of these various communities were linked in the mahalle not only by their common origin, religion, or culture, but also by external factors inspiring social solidarity. The place of worship was the community’s symbol of unity and all the inhabitants were responsible for its maintenance.101 The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the introduction of the Tanzimat reforms. These reforms guaranteed security of life, property, and honor to all subjects of the empire regardless of their religion or race. They also intro duced new laws regulating the form of urban structures, laws that limited the widths of buildings and adjusted the course of existing streets and roads. The regulations were an answer to the frequent fires that afflicted the cities of Istan bul, Thessaloniki (Figure 1.4) and Izmir. Fires were mainly due to the crowding

Figure 1.4 Eighteenth-century urban map of Thessaloniki. Source: registered in BOA under HRT 204.

32

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

of buildings and the use of wood as the main construction material, and in the nineteenth century they became recurrent. The destruction they caused was the justification for the transformation of the city (and somehow also the complexity of the Ottoman era town). In Thessaloniki, we follow another interesting example of urban development outside the city walls in what was then called the “towers” area towards the shores of today’s Kalamaria neighborhood. On this site, the new Hamidiye neighborhood was fashioned in 1887, increasing the Turkish-Muslim presence in the town.102 We will witness another such example of urban development in Kavala at the beginning of the twentieth century with the formation of two Muslim neighborhoods outside the old walled town.

The Ottoman house plan typology in Rumelia The Ottoman house developed across the vast regions of the empire. However, each of the different geographical zones was the home of pre-existing cultures with cities demonstrating characteristic urban and residential settlement patterns that the Ottomans built on or used as a foundation for their own urban and resi dential development of the site. Distinct house typologies developed throughout the Ottoman Empire, whether related to building materials, aesthetics, disposi tion of internal space, or vertical circulation of the whole. So too did plan typol ogies that were conditioned by such factors as location, geo-morphology, culture, religion, and geography. In this sense the house was not just an architectural plan or layout but was a way of shaping space that reflected the roots and lives of its users. Even analyzing the house as a unit representing the private within the public and the family as the most intimate and secluded nucleus, we can apply the terms Orientalism, Balkanism, Ottoman Orientalism, and Colonial Orientalism, depending when and where the house structures emerged. The house can be analyzed from the angle of plan layout development, but beyond this the present case study distinguishes typologies that mark the lands of the Ottomans and Kavala within the borders of Ottoman Rumelia. In this sense this work offers an outlook on and comparative approach to the house plan typologies present in the town of Kavala during the Ottoman era. This comparative approach looks at what was in existence in the proximate vicinity, in the region of Rumelia and Eastern Thrace, and at what existed in the lands of North Ottoman Anatolia, more precisely Istanbul and Edirne. The Ottoman Empire was a mixture of civilizations the material culture of which did not just disappear but became influential and accepted by the Otto mans. For example, the Ottomans did not disregard the material culture of the Christian majority in the empire before the conquest who continued to coexist together with their new rulers. This acceptance of the indigenous cultures that were in place at the time of conquest was visible in the exterior aesthetics of Ottoman dwellings. Their houses were not much different than those of Kastoria or Debar, hence affirming the great influence of the mixed civilizations in creat ing Ottoman society.103 Especially in the mixed cities, the Ottoman Christians, Ottoman Armenians, and Ottoman Jews were regarded as equal citizens, subject

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 33 to taxes but acknowledged and respected as pillars of trade; their towns and vil lages were not much different from those of the Muslim Ottomans. Nor were their homes, though some of the divisions of the internal space were adapted to Muslim religious requirements. This study focuses on house plan typology but also enters into the aesthetic elab oration of the exterior appearance of the dwellings. Houses could be distinguished as belonging to two separate periods; there were those built before the Tanzimat and those built after. The Tanzimat reforms are important because they opened the Ottoman Empire to the West and allowed foreign, Western influences to shape the layouts of the houses, their internal use of space, and their external appearance. In a very short period between the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ottoman urban culture spread over a large area of the empire, affecting many elements of its society. The town’s society, its culture, and its housing persisted, their influence spreading up to the first decades of the twentieth century. The Ottoman-Turkish house included many Slavic, Armenian, and Greek ethnic elements due to the numbers of ethnic artisans coming from these communities who were mainly master builders throughout the empire.104 It is still unknown and debatable if the Ottoman-Turkish house imposed itself on the Balkan communities that were not of Turkish origins or if it was a product of the agglutinations of a multiethnic society.105 Even at the academic level we must say that still the research in those areas, especially considering the Ottoman heritage in the Balkans, is often obstructed by endless debates on the originality of the local architecture or the pressure to find an identity hidden behind the ver nacular architecture where ethnicity seems to be the most relevant aspect. The problem is seldom considered as a whole. The Ottoman house occupies a very important place in the world history of house types.106 It has its own specific character and value and exists in a wide expanse of the Ottoman Empire’s Rumelian and Anatolian provinces. Estab lished toward the end of the fourteenth century, the Ottoman house began its development107 in the conquered territories, though it is believed to have origi nated in Anatolia. It soon spread to the newly conquered Rumelia. However, the Ottoman Balkan lands already had a strongly identifiable pattern of urban devel opment and towns of an unmistakable character. In this particular area the Ottoman house was not the product of Ottoman invention, but a dwelling based on pre-existing (Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic) conditions and local tradition, building patterns, and construction practices. Considering the rarity of dispos able old houses, scholars and architects examining the Ottoman house have been concerned mainly with its typology.108 While many Turkish scholars, such as Sedad Hakkı Eldem, Doğan Kuban, and Önder Küçükerman, support the hypo thesis that the Turkish house emerged from the Turkomanic nomadic tribe tent otağ, other scholars, such as Cerasi, theorize that it could have emerged from the Hellenistic house.109 All agree that it is difficult to know for sure. Whether the Ottoman-Turkish house existed as a distinct type before the seven teenth century and imposed itself on the non-Turkish Balkan communities

34

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans when they began to prosper, or whether the Ottoman house was the syncretic product of a multiethnic society from the seventeenth century onwards with the imperial court acting as a powerful catalyst is an open question.110

In short, many studies concern the development of Ottoman house architecture over the centuries in the Balkans in general and in Greece and Macedonia in par ticular. However, there has been very little examination of the port town of Kavala.111 The Ottoman house is believed to originate from the regions of Marmara and Rumelia. The Marmara region had its impact on Rumelia whereas Istanbul (in the Marmara region) influenced the lands of Anatolia. The houses of Marmara and the town of Istanbul assume special importance when compared to houses that developed in relation to geographical location.112 It is widely accepted that the Istanbul house was a typical Ottoman era house while the houses in the other regions were classified as provincial types with regional influences. Sedad Hakkı Eldem, who was the first to pioneer the studies of the Ottoman house through its typological aspects, emphasizes that the town of Edirne has significance similar to Istanbul, but Istanbul influenced the Anatolian region while Edirne influenced Rumelia.113 The Ottoman house was defined principally by the concept of the room; this space later continued to develop, and other necessary features were added. The story of the house is a crucial element of the Ottoman era house.114 The house’s ground floor was built in stone with an entrance and small or absent windows. The first floor, or the last floor in the case of two-story houses, was the center of the life of the household.115 Another important element of the Ottoman era house is the sofa or hall. Rooms in the house always open into the hall. If the room can be compared to a house, the hall can be compared to a street and all the houses opening onto it.116 The types of house plans are determined by the position of the hall and the way the rooms open to it (Figure 1.5). Four distinct types of Ottoman house have been defined: (1) the house without a hall (sofasız);117 (2) the house with an outer hall (dış sofalı); (3) the house with an inner hall (iç sofalı); and (4) the house with a central hall (orta sofalı). The house type without the hall was considered the simplest typology, leading to the later development of the other plan types. This house had a single room, or sometimes more than one positioned side by side to create a pathway through their entrances. If the house had an upper floor (or floors) this pathway was transformed into a balcony that sometimes was enclosed. In this way, the so-called hayat house, a primordial type from which the other house types evolved, developed in the provinces to the south where there was a hot climate. More complex house plans developed with the addition of different functional architectural elements such as the greeting area (selamlık), women’s quarters (harem),118 recessed iwans (eyvan) or pavilions (köşk), but they still kept the fundamental typological classification based on the position of the hall.119

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 35

Figure 1.5 House plan types with (1) outer hall; (2) inner hall; (3) central hall. Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from S.H. Eldem, 1984.

Very little is known about domestic architecture from the fifteenth and sixteenth century because the material used for these structures was wood, always the target of fires. Few survive today. Because of this we cannot analyze the development of the Ottoman house further back than the seventeenth-century. Ottoman house plans went through several phases of transformation as three different types of floor plan evolved over time. The first phase of the house’s transformation took place in the seventeenth century, the second in the eighteenth century, and the third in the nineteenth century. It is important to note that the categorization of house plan development by centuries was applicable only to Istanbul. This is because

36

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

these three phases spread from Istanbul over the whole region of Marmara and also had secondary influences in more remote geographies of the Ottoman Empire; in some areas, houses constructed according to early plans survived to exist along side contemporary style ones. Because of this cohabitation of plan typologies, especially in the provinces, the division of house plan development is seen most in Istanbul. The stairs, as elements directly determining the vertical distribution of space in the Ottoman house, went through phases of transformation as did the house plan types. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the stairs were not an integral part of the architectural plan but an external element built into the house structure on the outer side of the hall.120 After they became an integral part of house plans they were positioned inside the hall and assumed different positions in the plan, sometimes between two rooms. The stairs became a subject of modi fication and more elaborated as the dwellings became more spacious. This trans formation was mostly noticeable toward the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, when the rise of the new aristocratic class together with the process of Westernization introduced new neoclassical expres sions to Ottoman architecture.121 If we believe the Ottoman Muslims and Ottoman Christians had more or less similar ways of life, should religion be the most important frame for examining the daily lives and dwelling needs of the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire over five centuries? All ethnic and religious groups were equal participants in Ottoman city life and Kavala was no exception. However, speaking of an Ottoman era house, especially in the lands of Rumelia, is important because there were many factors that influenced house development apart from the Otto mans or Turks. The Ottoman house was a house that had pre-existing conditions that included strong local traditions and local builders who imposed them on these houses. Kavala was a town born in Ottoman lands that were once Byzantine. The set tlement had a pre-existing context that the new settlement, according to the historical circumstances, partially held onto. It developed in the region of the empire where the strong Saidian Orientalism was not prevalent or obvious. Lands that previously belonged to Christians now fell into the hands of Muslims. These Muslims provided continuity for the settlements in Northern Greece and in the Balkans in general: they built onto what already existed, they created mul tireligious urban settlements, they adjusted to what was there before, and they tolerated pre-existing cultures and traditions without brutally disturbing or colo nizing, as was the case with the colonies of the great Western empires in the nineteenth century. Kavala is an example of a town in the Balkans with a pre existing context, re-born in the Ottoman era. It developed rapidly under the Otto mans and had its peak during the last 60 years of the Ottoman rule when it became the most vibrant, multiethnic, and multicultural port town in the Balkans.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 37

Notes 1 Orientalism was a Western scholarly discipline of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen turies that encompassed the study of the languages, literatures, religions, philo sophies, histories, art, and laws of Asian societies, especially ancient ones. Such scholarship also inspired broader intellectual and artistic circles in Europe and North America, and so Orientalism may also denote general enthusiasm for things Asian or “Oriental”. For further information see: www.britannica.com/science/Orientalism cultural-field-of-study, accessed July 2019. On Orientalism and discussions see: Edward Said (1978/1995), Orientalism; Bernard Lewis, The question of Orientalism, New York Review of Books, June 24, 1982 and Said’s reply in NYRB, August 12, 1982; Lata Mani and Ruth Frankenberg, The challenge of Orientalism, Economy and Society, 14(2); Bryan Turner, From Orientalism to global sociology, Sociology, November 1989; Sadik Jalal al-’Azm Orientalism and Orientalism in reverse, Khamsin, 8, 1981; Edward Said (1988), Orientalism revisited, MERIP Middle East Reports, 18(1); Edward Said, Orientalism and after: An interview, Radical Philo sophy, 63(Spring 1993); Aijaz Ahmad, In theory, London: Verso Books, 1992, Chapter 5; Halliday, F. (1993), Orientalism and its critics, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 20(2), 145–163. 2 Todorova, M. (1996), The construction of a Western discourse of the Balkans. Etnološka tribina: Godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društva, 26(19), 7–24. 3 Raymond, A. (2002), Arab cities in the Ottoman period: Cairo, Syria, and the Maghreb, Routledge, p. 6. 4 For overviews of the debate on the “Islamic city” with a profound analysis of his toriography to date, see Andre Raymond (1994), Islamic city, Arab city: Orientalist myths and recent views, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 21(1), 3–18; idem, The spatial organization of the city, in The city in the Islamic world, ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 47–70; Giulia Annalinda Neglia, Some historiographical notes on the Islamic city with particular reference to the visual representation of the built city”, in The city in the Islamic world, 3–46. 5 Boykov, G. (2016), The T-shaped zaviye/imarets of Edirne: A key mechanism for Ottoman urban morphological transformation, Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 3(1), 29–48. 6 Ibid; Bierman, I.A., Abou-El-Haj, R.A., and Preziosi, D. (Eds.) (1991), The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order (Vol. 3), Aristide d Caratzas Pub, p. 7. 7 Hakim, B.S. (1986), Arabic-Islamic cities: Building and planning principles. 8 Raymond, A. (2002), Arab cities in the Ottoman period: Cairo, Syria, and the Maghreb, Routledge, p. 18. 9 Weber, M., Martindale, D., and Neuwirth, G. (1958), The city (pp. 65–89, especially pp. 80–89), New York: Free Press. 10 In the Balkans and some parts of Asia Minor, Christian and Jewish communities had more or less self-governing bodies that did not develop into the European style of democracies. This was probably because of the Ottoman government as well as the influence the Ottomans’ religion had on the other religious groups. 11 Bierman, I.A., Abou-El-Haj, R.A., and Preziosi, D. (Eds.) (1991), The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order (Vol. 3). Aristide d Caratzas Pub. p. 5. 12 Ibid., pp. 4–6. 13 Eldem, H.E., Eldem, E., Goffman, D., and Masters, B. (1999), The Ottoman city between East and West. 14 Boykov, G. (2010), Balkan city or Ottoman city? A study on the models of urban development in Ottoman Upper Thrace, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Islamic Civilisa tion in the Balkans (pp. 69–86).

38

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

15 See: Кийл [Kiel], М. (2005), Хора и селища в България през османския период, Събрани съчинения, Amicitia, София; Kiel, M. (1990), Urban development in Bulgaria in the Turkish period: The place of Turkish architecture in the process, in The Turks of Bulgaria: The history, culture and political fate of a minority, Istanbul: Isis, pp. 79–158; Kiel, M. (1990), Studies on the Ottoman architecture of the Balkans, Collected studies series, Vol. 326, Variorum; Todorov, N. (1983), The Balkan city, 1400–1900 (Publications on Russia and Eastern Europe of the School of International Studies, No. 12), University of Washington Press; Shashko, P. (2004), Nikolai T. Todorov, 1921–2003, Slavic Review, 63(2), 456–457. 16 In the Ottoman Balkans, many new towns were built that were pure Ottoman (e.g. Sarajevo); most of these carried the prefix yeni meaning “new”, such as Yeni Sehir, Yenice-I Vardar, and others. 17 A number of valuable investigations into the history of Byzantine towns appeared in Soviet Russia, some fortunately devoted to the early Middle Ages. Yet despite the real merits of these works, the most important questions about the development of Byzantine towns remain open, such as to what extent did the old cities survive the turbulent times of the early Middle Ages, which influenced the conditions under which the Ottomans later acted? In the past there was insufficient literature on the history of Byzantine cities, especially in the Middle Ages when the Byzantine Empire was going through those turbulent times, but today there is thorough research on Byzantine urban planning, housing, family life, and so on. See Simon P. Ellis’s work on late Roman houses and Byzantine houses and family life: Ellis, S.P. (1988), The end of the Roman house, American Journal of Archaeology, 92(4), 565–576; Ellis, S.P. (2013). The Middle Byzantine house and family: A reappraisal, in Approaches to the Byzantine family, pp. 247–273. See also Dark, K.R. (2007), Roman architecture in the great palace of the Byzantine emperors at Constantinople during the sixth to ninth centuries, Byzantion, 77, 87–105. Türkoǧlu, İ. (2004). Byz antine houses in Western Anatolia: an architectural approach. Al-Masaq, 16(1), 93–130. Scholars are divided on whether the early Byzantine towns transformed during the Middle Ages, either declining or developing. These cities could not be analyzed as in the case of Byzantium or Thessaloniki, for which there was much more material to work with. An exception is the group of valuable studies dealing with the so-called Book of the Prefect, since such works are devoted only to Con stantinople and Constantinople in the tenth century. 18 Ostrogorsky, G. (1959), Byzantine cities in the early middle ages, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13, 45–66. 19 Bacharach, J.L. (1991), Administrative complexes, palaces, and citadels: Changes in the loci of medieval Muslim rule, in The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order, pp. 111–128. 20 Ibid., p. 111. 21 Ibid., p. 127. 22 It is not possible to list here the scholars who have made enormous contributions to visualizing the Islamic city through different lenses, such as social, political, eco nomic, or urban and architectural. One important and relatively recent text that sum marizes some of the efforts to define and describe the Islamic city is the following publication: Jayyusi, S.K., Holod, R., Petruccioli, A., & Raymond, A. (Eds.) (2008), The city in the Islamic world (2 vols.), Handbook of Oriental studies Section 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 94, Leiden-Boston: Brill. 23 This statement or writing is believed to be written by St. Sava to Irinej; its authenticity is questioned by Radivoj Radic, a Serbian historian and specialist for Byzantine studies See: www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/184410/Sveti-Sava-to-nije-rekaoradivoj%20radic. 24 Bakić-Hayden, M., and Hayden, R.M. (1992), Orientalist variations on the theme “Balkans”: Symbolic geography in recent Yugoslav cultural politics, Slavic Review, 51(1), 1–15.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 39 25 Fleming, K.E. (2000), Orientalism, the Balkans, and Balkan historiography, The American Historical Review, 105(4), 1229. 26 Ibid., p. 1219. 27 Makdisi, U. (2002), Ottoman Orientalism, The American Historical Review, 107(3), 772. 28 Carrier, J.G. (Ed.) (1995), Occidentalism: Images of the West, Clarendon Press, p. 6. 29 Makdisi, p. 795. 30 Bakić-Hayden, M. (1995), Nesting orientalisms: The case of former Yugoslavia. Slavic Review, 54(4), 918. 31 B Bozdogan, S. (2015), Architecture and the late Ottoman historical imaginary: Reconfiguring the architectural past in a modernizing empire, Journal of Art Histori ography, 13, 1. 32 Goldsworthy, V. (1998), Inventing Ruritania: The imperialism of the imagination, Yale University Press. 33 Fleming, p. 1222. 34 Tanzimat were series of reforms enacted in the Ottoman Empire between 1839 and 1876 under the reigns of the sultans Abdülmecid I and Abdülaziz. These reforms, heavily influenced by European ideas, were intended to effect a fundamental shift from the old system based on theocratic principles to a new, modern system of gov ernment. See Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com/event/Tanzimat). 35 For an account of the multiculturalism and economic, linguistic, and social inter actions in the Balkan region and around the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, see: Matvejevic, P. (1999), The Mediterranean: A cultural landscape. (M.H. Heim, Trans.), Los Angeles: University of California Press. 36 Maurice Münir Cerasi (1932–2015) was a prominent scholar in the field of the Ottoman civilization. Born in Istanbul from a Jewish Sephardic family, he studied in Turkey in the first decades of the newborn Republic and later moved to France and then Italy. In his long career as an architect and academician he developed a keen interest in public space and private dwellings. As an academic he was always inter ested in understanding “the other” in relation to the architectural environment. He focused his research on the Eastern Mediterranean world, including Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula, and the Middle East, trying to define the development and the complexity of traditional houses, monuments, and the urban culture in those geographies. 37 See: Cerasi, M. (2005), La città dalle molte culture: L’architettura del Mediterraneo orientale, Milano: Libri Scheiwiller, pp. 13–22. 38 Many samples of and theories on the formation of the Ottoman cities and towns in the Eastern Mediterranean context and in the Balkan Peninsula can be found in the fundamental book written by Cerasi: Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante. Civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX, Milan: Jaca Books. 39 Cerasi, M. (2005), La città dalle molte culture, p. 15. 40 Ünsal, B. (1959), Turkish Islamic architecture in Seljuk and Ottoman times, London: Alec Tiranti, p. 9. 41 For the quote, see: Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, p. 20. 42 Cerasi defines the traditional vernacular architecture in this geography in three main categories: houses modeled on the Greek-Mediterranean house, built in masonry and covered with plaster and a flat roof; houses modeled on the Turkish-Ottoman house, related also to the Macedonian house type, built in wood; and finally, houses modeled on the Syrian-Anatolian house, built in stone and with the presence of courtyards. See: Cerasi, M. (2005), La città dalle molte culture, p. 15. 43 See: Kiel, M., Un héritage non désiré: le patrimoine architectural islamique ottoman dans l’Europe du Sud-Est, 1370–1912, Études balkaniques [online], 12, put online April 6, 2009, last retrieved December 5, 2018, http://journals.openedition.org/ etudesbalkaniques/123.

40

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans

44 Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, p. 20.

45 Veinstein, G. (2008), The Ottoman town (fifteenth–eighteenth centuries), in The city

in the Islamic world (pp. 205–217), Leiden: Brill. 46 Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, p. 21. 47 Directly related to the Turkish word Rumeli, Rumelia means “the Land of the Romans” and is the name that the Ottomans used for their possessions in the Balkans. The territory of Rumelia was the European territory of the Ottoman Empire covering the geographical areas of today’s Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, some parts of today’s Albania, and Greece. The term derives from the word Rum, used in the past to indicate the lands occupied by the Greeks and the Latins; this word referenced ancient Rome and later the Byz antine Empire, which the Turkish tribes from Central Asia saw as a limit to their access to the West. For further information about the toponomy, see: www.britan nica.com/place/Rumelia. Last accessed November 2018. 48 Yerasimos, S. (1991), Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIVe–XVIe siècles), Ankara: Imprimerie de la Societé Turque d’histoire; Orlandi, L. (2017), Il paesaggio delle architetture di Sinan, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 49 The word was used to refer to non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire see: Ursinus, M.O.H. (2012), Millet, in P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W.P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.), Brill, https:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/search?s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of islam-2&search-go=&s.q=millet (accessed October 13, 2019). 50 For the history of Sofia see Crampton, R.J. (2005), A concise history of Bulgaria, Cam bridge University Press; Ward, P. (1993), Sofia: Portrait of a city, Oleander Press; Staddon, C., & Mollov, B. (2000), City profile: Sofia, Bulgaria, Cities, 17(5), 379–387. 51 Cuneo, P. (1986), Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo islamico, p. 384.

52 Ibid. p. 384.

53 Florescu, R. (1976), Prezente musulmane in Romania [Muslims in Romania Past

and Present], Bucarest, p. 21. 54 Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, pp. 58–59. 55 Cuneo, P. (1986), Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo islamico, p. 385. 56 Bakirtzis, C. (2003), The urban continuity and size of late Byzantine Thessalonike, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 57, 35–64. 57 Ibid., p. 42. 58 Ostrogorsky, G. (1959), Byzantine cities in the early middle ages, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13, p. 55. 59 See: Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1980), Length-units in Roman town planning: The pes monetalis and the pes drusianus, Britannia, 11, 127–133; Owens, E.J. (2018), The city in the Greek and Roman world, Routledge; Laurence, R. (2010), Roman Pompeii: Space and society, Routledge; Kostof, S. (1991), The city shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history; Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1974), Cities of ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in classical antiquity; Kostof, S. (1995), A history of architecture: Settings and rituals, New York: Oxford University Press. 60 Somel, S.A. (2003), Historical dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Scarecrow Press, p. 246. 61 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The con quest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece, Bahçeşehir University Publications. 62 Bakirtzis, C. (2003), The urban continuity and size of late Byzantine Thessalonike, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 57, 35–64. 63 TDV Ansiklopedisi, İ. (2004), Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Cilt 29, pp. 159–161. Accessed in September 2019: https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/menzil-osmanli. 64 Bakirtzis, C. (2003), The urban continuity and size of late Byzantine Thessalonike, p. 38.

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 41 65 Lowry, H. (2015), The role of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos and his descendants in endowing zâviye-imârets (dervish lodges–soup kitchens) in the Balkans: Scale – Intent – Dura tion, in Bordering early modern Europe (pp. 163–184). 66 Lowry, H.W. (2013), Early Ottoman Period. In The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey (pp. 21–30), Routledge. 67 Lowry, H. (2015), The role of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos and his descendants in endowing zâviye-imârets (dervish lodges–soup kitchens) in the Balkans, retrieved from www. jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc2rkd9.18. 68 See Machiel Kiel (2013), Yenice-İ Karasu Yunanistan’ın Batı Trakya bölgesinde tarihî bir kasaba; Yenice-i Vardar Yunanistan’da Tarihi bir Kasaba; Yenişehir Yunanistan’da Tarihi bir Kasaba, TDV, in islamansiklopedisi.org.tr. 69 Somel, S.A. (2003), Historical dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Scarecrow Press, p. 103. 70 Schreiner, P. (1977), Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: 2. Teil, Historischer Kom mentar, p. 343. 71 See Lowry, H.W. (2009), In the footsteps of the Ottomans: A search for sacred spaces & architectural monuments in Northern Greece, Bahçeşehir University Press. 72 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The con quest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece, Bahçeşehir University Publications. 73 See: Yerasimos, S. (1991), Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman; Zachariadou, E.A. (Ed.) (1996), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule (1380–1699), Crete University Press; Orlandi, L. (2017), Il paesaggio delle architetture di Sinan, p. 49. 74 According to Cerasi: “The impact of that process has been a rise of a large number of new cities, although in reality many of these were nothing more than villages or small villages reinforced by the presence of imarets and new mahalles. None of the newly founded Anatolian cities was truly new. […] In the Balkans the situation was completely different: Novi Pazar, Sarajevo (Saraybosna), Travnik, Veles (Köprülü), Pirot, Larissa (Yenişehir), are new foundations and many other cities, such as Skopje (Üsküp), Bitola (Monastir), Plevna, Belgrade, Banja Luka, although they were ancient centers, developed an expansion many times larger than the pre-existing core”. See Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, p. 50. 75 Klusakova, L. (2002), The road to Constantinople: Sixteenth-century Ottoman towns through Christian eyes, Prague: ISV Publishers, p. 125. 76 Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, p. 58. 77 Korobeinikov, D. (2006), How “Byzantine” were the early Ottomans? Bithynia in c.1290–1450, in Османский мир и османистика. Сборник статей к 100-летию со дня рождения АС Тверитиновой (1910–1973), pp. 215–239. 78 Klusakova, L. (2001), Between reality and stereotype: Town views of the Balkans, Urban History, 28(3), p. 360. 79 Pinon, P. (2008), The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans, in The City in the Islamic World, Vol. 2, Brill. 80 Ibid. 81 The soup kitchen was one of the major activities of the charitable foundations and the term imaret was used in Ottoman times to denote the entire complex with its various purposes and not only the kitchen itself. Today it is more common to find it replaced by the Turkish term külliye, the multi-functional complex. The Ottoman külliye of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries consisted of two key structures, the mosque and the medrese. Later in the sixteenth century these complexes added other public structures such as caravanserai and hospice facilities (tabhane) etc. Usually a public bath was also included in these complexes. See: Kuran, A. (2012), Selçuklular’dan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de mimarlık [Architecture in Turkey from the Seljuks to the Republic], Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, p. 445. 82 Kuran, A. (2012), Selçuklular’dan Cumhuriyet’e, p. 479.

42 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

103

104 105 106

107 108

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans Ibid, p. 443.

See Chapters 3 and 4 in: Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, pp. 45–77.

Pinon, P. (2008), The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans.

Cuneo, P. (1986), Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo islamico, Bari: Editori Laterza,

p. 381. İnalcık, H. (1954), Ottoman methods of conquest. Studia islamica, 2, 103–129. Cvetkova, B.A. (1971), Actes concernant la vie economique de villes et ports balka nique sous les ottomans (XV–XIX s.), p. 347. Cuneo, P. (1986), Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo islamico, p. 385. Akın, N. (2001), Balkanlarda Osmanlı dönemi konutları, İstanbul: Literatür, p. 74. Monter, W. (2007), Cultural exchange in early modern Europe (Vol. 2), Cambridge University Press. Ibid., p. xxvi. Çelik, Z., & Favro, D. (1988), Methods of urban history, Journal of Architectural Education, 41(3), p. 5. See also Bacharach, J.L. (1991), Administrative complexes, palaces, and citadels: Changes in the loci of medieval Muslim rule, in The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order, p. 127. Kostof, S. (1992), The city assembled: The elements of urban form through history, London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, p. 15. Kuban, D. (1995), The Turkish Hayat house, İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık. Turkish translation, 1996, Türk hayatlı evi, İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık. See Chapter 5 in: Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante, pp. 81–114. Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2009), Constantinopolis/Istanbul cultural encounter, imperial vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital, The Pennsylvania State Univer sity Press, p. 183. Kuban, D. (2010), Istanbul, an urban history: Byzantion, Constaninopolis, Istanbul, Türkiye İş Bankasi Kültür yayınları. Ibid. Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2009), Constantinopolis/Istanbul, p. 181. A decision to give the area the name of Sultan Abdul Hamid II was not published until October 1887, on the suggestion of the local authorities to form a separate quarter outside the Kalamaria gate. For more on the development of Thessaloniki outside the walls see: Kolonas, V. (2014), Thessaloniki outside the walls Illustra tions of the Countryside (1885–1912)/H Θεσσαλονικη Εκτοσ Των Τειχων Εικονογραφια Της Συνοικιασ Των Εξοχων (1885–1912), Thessaloniki/Θεσσαλονικη: University Studio Press, p. 37. See: Ivkovska, V. (2019), Aiming towards the sky: The vernacular “skyscrapers” of the South-West Balkans; Ivkovska, V. (2018) Ottoman vernacular architecture in the town of Kastoria (Kesriye), Greece, in M. Bernardini & A. Taddei (Eds.), 15th Inter national Congress of Turkish Art proceedings, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlı ı, Università di Napoli “l’Orientale”, Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino. Cerasi, M. (1998), The formation of Ottoman house types: A comparative study in interaction with neighboring cultures, Muqarnas, 15, p. 116. Ibid., p. 116. The Ottoman house, in general, is a continuous point of interest of many scholars. The list of authors that have contributed to the literature on the Ottoman town, Ottoman housing, and Ottoman vernacular architecture includes D. Kuban, R. Günay, M. Cerasi, S.H. Eldem, C. Bertram, W. Bechhoefer, E. Aksoy, and A. Arel. These are too many others to mention in this small space. Prof. Sedad Hakkı Eldem contributed detailed descriptions of Ottoman house devel opment and specific floor plans. See: Eldem, S.H. (1954), Türk Evi Plan Tipleri, Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi. Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis between the Istanbul house plan types

Formation of Ottoman era towns in Balkans 43

109

110 111

112

113 114 115 116 117

118 119 120

121

and the plan types of the Ottoman houses in the Panagia district in Kavala (Ver gleichende Analyse des Osmanischen Haustyps in Istanbul und dem Panagia Bezirk in Kavala), Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture, 9, p. 14. Cerasi argues that the formation of Ottoman cities and towns, especially in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, is related to the urban practice inherited from ancient Hellenistic and Roman cosmopolitan centers. See: Cerasi, M. (2005), La città dalle molte culture, p. 13. See: Cerasi, M. (1998), The formation of Ottoman house types, p. 116. Many other authors have dealt with the Ottoman house and architecture in the Balkans and/or the traditional Balkan house. Dushan Grabrijan’s work on traditional houses in what once was Yugoslavia deals with two specific examples of the tradi tional Balkan house in his works The Bosnian Oriental Architecture in Sarajevo and Macedonian House or Its Transition from Old Oriental to Modern European House. Neval Konuk’s Ottoman Architecture in Greece, Nur Akın’s Balkanlarda Osmanlı Dönemi Konutlar; Dogan Kuban’s Türk Ahşap Konut Mimarisi, and Onder Küçüker man’s The Turkish House in Search of Spatial Identity focus on the Ottoman house in the Balkans and Northern Greece. The list of authors that have worked on the Ottoman town, housing, and vernacular architecture is long; however, none of those authors’ works references Kavala’s Ottoman house. Melissa Publishing in Athens offers a rich list of scholarly titles concerning the traditional house in different Greek regions and towns, but not a one mentions the traditional houses in Kavala. In his book on the Turkish house in the Ottoman era, Eldem gives a detailed expla nation of the regional classification of the Ottoman house. There, he classifies the houses in seven groups. For more details see: Eldem, S.H. (1984), Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi, Cilt.1, Türkiye Anıt Çevre Turizm Değerlerini Koruma Vakfı, pp. 30–32. His research resulted in classifications and schematic drawings based on the plans and positions of the house’s main floors. See Eldem, S.H. (1984), Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi. Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante. On the lifestyle see: Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante; Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis. Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis, p. 16. In his book The Turkish Hayat House, Prof. Doğan Kuban publishes his research on this house type and its importance to the development of the Ottoman house. This house type differs from that with the outer hall in that the hall is enclosed and treated as a part of the house’s floor plan. Selamlık means greeting. This place in the house is used by men for activities other than domestic ones. Harem is the area of the house that is exclusively reserved for the family, where women and children reside with the men. Bertram, C. (2008), Imagining the Turkish house, Austin: University of Texas Press. These types of houses are typical of rural areas of the Balkans, especially Macedonia and some parts of Serbia; known as “куќа чардаклија” or a house with a chardak, they also exist in rural Anatolian areas known as Türk hayat evi. For detailed ana lysis of these types of vernacular structures see Bing, J. (2018), Chardak between Heaven and Earth: Tracing vernacular space in Balkan architecture, Procyon Lotor Press. Eldem, S.H. (1954), Türk Evi Plan Tipleri.

2

History and urban development of Kavala

Before Kavala: Neapolis and Byzantine Christoupolis Knowing the historical background of Kavala is important to understanding its formation. To make sense of Kavala’s overall development and determine the continuity of its urban life (if any) through different periods and centuries, we must investigate the pre-existing circumstances that may or may not have influenced its development and growth. The history of the town of Kavala was strongly connected with the history of the region that surrounds the area of the inland of Eastern Macedonia, the coast spreading to the north of the island of Tassos, the Rhodope Mountains to the north, and Mount Pangaion to the west, which at the time was a very important locality due to its silver and gold mines.1 Published research examining periods from prehistoric times onward tells us that different populations settled the area surrounding the valley from today’s Bulgarian border to the territory of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in Greece, covering the prefectures of Drama and Kavala and terminating at the sea with the island of Tassos.2 Nikos Karagiannakidis and Kyriakos Lycurinos have published research showing that excavation of the area surrounding Kavala reveals dwellings from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (4000–2000 bc).3 On the rocky peninsula, traces of an Iron Age settlement (1000–800 bc) include handmade pottery with channeled decoration, likely remaining from indigenous Thracian people living in the area of Kavala and Tassos. The Greeks were producing pottery with subgeometric decoration by the seventh century bc, suggesting that by this time the local Thracian settlement existed and was trading with cities of the northeast Aegean.4 Nevertheless, the above-mentioned sources do not clarify where exactly the town of Neapolis was positioned. Traces of an Iron Age settlement existed somewhere on the rocky peninsula, but its exact location and size have not been precisely determined. Even the wheel pottery findings do not determine the locus of this settlement. As the Bulgarian archaeologist Petya Ilieva mentions, if the local Thracians traded with the cities of the northeast Aegean, it is more likely that Neapolis was probably positioned not on the hill of the rocky peninsula but rather in the flat lands behind its neck, just below the rock cliffs to the west,

History and urban development of Kavala 45 close to the seashore where access to the port was most convenient for trading. This is consistent with recent excavation of the peninsula: traces of ancient walls dating from the fifth century bc have been discovered in the lowest portions of the wall facing the former site of the old harbor. This suggests that ancient Neapolis might not have been positioned on the hill but rather in the flat area below the walls and in area nearest the harbor.5 However, the history of the town of Kavala is entwined with the history of the island of Tassos. As Georgios Papazoglou, Dimitris Lazaridi, and others say in their works, in the early seventh century bc the island attracted colonists from Paros and later Eritrea, Athens, and other principalities. Thasians colonized the mainland opposite the island to the north, from the river Strymonas to the river Nestos, establishing many trading centers. Kavala was a Thasian colony first known by the name Neapolis, “new city”, and a member of the first Athenian League,6 and can indeed be found on the Athenian Tribute Lists from 454–453 bc.7 During the time of the Macedonian dynasty, King Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, annexed Neapolis from Athens and the city became a port of his stronghold at Philippi, founded around 356 bc.8 Little is known about Philippi’s history in the Hellenistic period or about the history of its port Neapolis.9 The first written evidence of Neapolis dates from the paleo-Christian era. Two “milliaries” on the Via Egnatia, dated to the reigns of the emperors Trajan (106/107 ad) and Septimius Severus (198/201 ad)10 suggest that the town was positioned along the Via Egnatia’s route. In the Roman period, Neapolis’s harbor became important as a port of Philippi. The Romans used the port to transport goods and troops to the East. However, because the Via Egnatia passed behind the hilly peninsula and not through it, this further supports the view that Neapolis was probably located in the flat lands by the shores of the Aegean and not on the hill of the peninsula. The inland “arterial road” of the Via Egnatia (Figure 2.1) passed through the town and then crossed the valley of Drama toward Philippi, connecting the Adriatic coast with Kypsela11 and Byzantium.12 Neapolis became a station on the Via Egnatia. Between the third and eighth century ad, references to Neapolis were rare. The city was generally mentioned without much detail in itineraries of Western travelers.13 It is unclear whether Neapolis was renamed Christoupolis or if Christoupolis was built on the site of Neapolis. The city’s new name appears in documents from the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century ad.14 Much earlier, it had been here in Neapolis that the apostle Paul, in 49 ad or 50 ad on his second missionary journey, landed on Macedonian soil and proclaimed the new religion of Christ.15 And passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. A vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us”. When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. So putting out to sea from Troas,

46

History and urban development of Kavala we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. (Book of Acts, Chapter 16, verses 8–12)

Architectural fragments built into the city’s medieval fortress and early Ottoman buildings attest to the existence of early Christian buildings in Neapolis.16 This information points to Byzantine Christoupolis as probably a continuation of ancient Neapolis, but this has not been definitely proven. The Dutch scholar Machiel Kiel states that a small fortified Byzantine castle was situated at the promontory where Ottoman Kavala later stood; but Kiel apparently contradicts this by also stating that an open settlement probably lay at its foot.17 These contradictions cause confusion as to whether this Byzantine settlement was located on the hill below the castle of the promontory or out of it.

Figure 2.1 Via Egnatia and the settlements on its route. Source: re-elaborated from Cerasi M., 1988, La città del Levante: Civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX, Milano: Jaca Books.

History and urban development of Kavala 47 Restoration work done by the 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Monuments revealed the remains of two 15-meter high walls on the west side of the peninsula. The base of these walls dates to between the third and sixth centuries ad. They probably belonged to the late Roman period. The upper 2–3 m of the walls shows major repairs done in the 1520s, during the Ottoman era when the town became known under its name Kavala.18 If these walls were built during the Roman era, when we know that Neapolis was used as port for Philippi, then the question of the exact siting of Neapolis remains open. Certainly, fortification walls were built to guarantee security of a settlement inside them; so, if there were fortifications the settlement should be inside them and not outside. If Neapolis was indeed by the shores of the port enwalled by the natural cliffs on this side of the peninsula where these walls are, we would expect to find remnants of walls in the surrounding flat lands to encapsulate the settlement unless these walls have been lost over time. The question remains, why would the Romans construct a portion of a wall so small and over such a brief distance if the purpose was to protect the settlement? Was Neapolis indeed not open at all to the harbor, but enwalled and protected by walls that do not survive? Restoration work on the Halil Bey Mosque in 2008 offered answers to these questions. An early Christian three-nave basilica was unearthed, which confirmed the theory that in the early Christian era Neapolis was growing on the top of the peninsula, just below the fortress and not at its foot. Located, indeed, on the peninsula, Neapolis was probably later renamed Christoupolis, a name that demonstrated the town’s connection to Christianity. The visit of the apostle Paul to Neapolis’ harbor and the foundation of the first Christian churches in Philippi probably made Neapolis a focus of Christian pilgrimage.19 Another theory was that the town’s name was changed to distinguish it from the many other ports having the same name (like Naples in Italy),20 but this theory does not explain why the particular name Christoupolis was substituted. There is little material evidence of the urban patterns of Byzantine Christoupolis over this area where, most probably, pre-existing settlement patterns existed in the context of the previous, ancient Neapolis. As a result of their presence in the Balkans, Slavs were already raiding the whole of the area up to the outflow of the river Strymon, pillaging the valley of Strymonas and later the valley of Philippi. Because of this, the town’s role as a fortress became crucial. The town’s impregnability ensured, through its port, uninterrupted commerce and communication with both the capital of the empire and Thessaloniki.21 The fortress of Christoupolis appears for centuries to have remained one of the symbols of Byzantine dominance in the region. The strategic location of Christoupolis and its importance in defense against the Slavs was demonstrated in the ninth and tenth centuries ad as Byzantine officials undertook the city’s rebuilding and maintenance. In 926 ad, Basile Kladon, general of the “theme of Strymon”22 oversaw the erections of “walls that have deteriorated and have crumbled”, according to an inscription that survived in the coastal walls and is now kept at the Archaeological Museum of Kavala.23 The importance the Byzantine emperors gave to Christoupolis can be inferred from

48

History and urban development of Kavala

repeated repairs to the walls after the burning of the city by the Normans in 1185 ad or the new walls built by Andronikos Palaiologos II to cut off the retreat of Catalans in 1302.24 The final years of the Kommenian dynasty are mentioned in an inscription marking the destruction of a church by fire c.1182–1185 (the period of Norman raids in the area) and its reconstruction in 1193. During the Fourth Crusade, the Franks conquered the territory of Eastern Macedonia. In 1204 Christoupolis was captured by the Lombards, and in the mid-thirteenth century the territory’s history was marked by the treachery of the “Catalan Company”, a Spanish mercenary army hired by Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos to fight the Ottomans; the company turned against the emperor and looted and destroyed settlements along the Northern Aegean coastline.25 The town of Christoupolis and the island of Tassos remained under Latin rule until they both fell under the Ottomans. Tassos alternated between Latin and Byzantine rule some 50 years longer than Christoupolis before falling into Ottoman hands. Christoupolis was captured by the Ottomans in 1387 and totally destroyed in 1391.26 The histories of both ancient and early Christian Neapolis and Byzantine Christoupolis remain elusive. The town was a small settlement located somewhere on the peninsula and of little consequence in the historical written sources of the period. In most of them the town is only mentioned as a geographic location without explanation of its exact site or position. Neapolis is mentioned in the milliaries as a station on the Via Egnatia and a port of the stronghold of Philippi, as well as a communication point between the mainland and the Northern Aegean. In the Middle Ages the town appears with its new name, Christoupolis, which commemorates its ties with the apostle Paul. Christoupolis during the Byzantine period operated as a harbor and a military base for defense against raids. Most of the architectural evidence of this period is imprinted in the town walls. The rebuilding of the walls by the general of Strymon, Vasilios Kladon, is associated with the development of the period as well as with the role of the town as a defensive point. During the time of the Norman invasion and the Crusades the town was destroyed; we know this from an inscription embedded in the walls that today is kept at the Archaeological Museum of Kavala. The Ephorate of Byzantine Monuments of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace has dated portions of the walls, their conclusions based on small architectural elements used as spolia in the town walls; architectural and urban evidence in the foundations of an early Christian basilica (over which the Halil Bey Mosque was later built in the Ottoman era); and parts of the tower in the fortress ascribed to the Byzantine period. No evidence or solid material findings determine the urban patterns of the pre-existing settlements of Neapolis and Christoupolis. This is perhaps because after the Ottomans took over the town they leveled it to the ground; there is written evidence of this in the codex from the monastery of Panteleimon on Mount Athos.27 An alternative explanation is that the architectural program of the town was not that rich considering its long use as a military defensive base and probably consisted of one or two basilicas upon which the Ottomans later built. Recent findings of the early Christian basilica below Halil

History and urban development of Kavala 49 Bey Mosque suggest that, besides that done on the walls, little archaeological work was conducted to unearth new findings about Byzantine Christoupolis and even ancient Neapolis. Evrenos Bey or Gazi Evrenos played a pivotal role in Ottoman administration of the Balkans. From the mid-1350s until his death in 1417 he led every Ottoman conquest28 between the banks of the river Maritsa (Meriç) to the east and the shores of the Adriatic Sea to the west.29 The first Ottoman conquest of Macedonia took place between 1383 and 1387, the date of Thessaloniki’s surrender.30 Ottoman occupation lasted until 1403, when, as a consequence of the Battle of Ankara in the previous year, Thessaloniki (with Chalkidiki and the western Strymon valley) was recovered by the Byzantines through treaties with the Ottomans.31 During the second half of the fifteenth century, Ashik Pasha Zade chronicles Gazi Evrenos’s conquests of the towns of today’s Northern Greece. Though scholars question the reliability of Zade’s account because he was writing about the fourteenth century during the fifteenth century, archival material and other sources confirm some of the events he narrated32 and it is clear that he was using an earlier source, namely Yahşi Fakîh’s Menaqıbnâme. Zade’s chronicles allow us to infer the manner in which existing settlements capitulated to the conquerors, which determined their future survival. Most of the settlements in this part of Rumelia surrendered to the new conquerors and were treated accordingly.33 Zade mentions the capture of Kavala, Drama, Serres, Nea Zichni, Veria, Thessaloniki, Didymoteicho, Ioannina, Edessa, and others, each with terms of surrender that ensured their survival under the new rule. In the history of the Ottoman conquest of these lands, Ioannina was the first settlement ever officially recorded as being taken by agreement. Speros Vryonis states that it is the earliest recorded example of the terms granted by the Ottoman conquerors to their subjects in the Balkans.34 The conquerors acted in adherence to imperial law, sending the Ottoman ruler his share as well as granting gazis what they deserved. Thereafter the conquerors marched on to conquer Veria and all its surrounding settlements. The Ottomans allocated its provinces to fief soldiers and exacted tribute from its infidels. This time they granted Serres to Gazi Evrenos as his frontier base (uç).35 Kavala is mentioned as a settlement that was not taken by force, so it is unclear why it was leveled to the ground and its population scattered as Schreiner clearly states in the Byzantine chronicles.36 Existing tax registers show a gap in the continuity of the settlement from sometime between 1391 (after it fell completely to the Ottomans37) and 1487, the year of the first recorded tax register for Kavala. The tax registers also show a lack of any structures such as fortified walls or defense towers. All things considered, it is unclear why Kavala in Zade’s chronicles appears as a settlement that was not taken by force but still was leveled to the ground and uninhabited for almost a century. Most probably, Ashik Pasha Zade mentioned Kavala as one of the settlements on the Gazi Evrenos’s conquest route without much attention to the details of the aftermath of the settlement’s subjugation. The era of Murat I (1362–1389) witnessed Ottoman subjugation of Komotini (Gümülcine), Serres (1383), Thessaloniki (1387), Drama, and Kavala and domination of the Macedonian territories. In 1372–1395 Northern Thessaly was

50

History and urban development of Kavala

seized; Thessaloniki (Selanik) and Halkidiki (Halkidikiya) fell in 1392. Veria (Karaferiye), Neapolis (Yenişehir), and Aksios (Vardar) joined the conquered territories soon after. In 1397, Yıldırım Beyazit entered and occupied Athens via the Attica Peninsula. The Mora Peninsula was also forcibly incorporated into Ottoman-held territories, and in 1430 Thessaloniki was recaptured by the Ottomans under Murat II (1421–1451). By this time, Macedonia had become an Ottoman province under the administration of Rumelia Beylerbeyi.38 During the reign of Beyazit II (1481–1512), Greece fell under Ottoman rule altogether (1499) and remained there until the nineteenth century.39 The province of Rumelia, once named Eyalet-i Rumili, was divided into several vilayets in the course of the nineteenth century. In the last period under Ottoman domination, Kavala was under the jurisdiction of the Vilayet of Selanik.40 The vilayet was subdivided into four major sanjaks: the Sanjak of Selanik, including Thessaloniki (Selanik), Kassandra (Kesendire), Veria (Karaferye), Edessa (Vodina), Giannitsa (Yenice-i Vardar), Langadas (Langaza), Kilkis (Kılkış, which was also called Avrathisar), Mount Athos (Aynaroz), Dojran (Doyran), Strumica (Usturumca), Tikvesh (Tikveş), and Gevgelija (Gevgili); the Sanjak of Serres (Siroz), including Serres (Siroz), Zihne, Demirhisar, Razlog, Gotse Delchev (Cuma-­yı­ Bala), and Menlik; the Sanjak of Drama, including Drama, Kavala, Chrysoupoli (Sarışaban), Tassos (Taşoz), Eleftheroupoli (Pravişte), and Devin (Dövlen); and, finally, the island of Tassos that was initially part of the Sanjak of Drama but later promoted to sanjak, known as the Sanjak of Taşoz.41

Ottoman conquest of Kavala – the aftermath (1391–1478) The Ottoman conquest of Christoupolis occurred sometime before 1387, but the fate of the area had been decided after the Battle of Tsirmen42 16 years earlier, when the Ottomans began the rapid conquest of cities in Macedonia. Christoupolis did not fall into the hands of the Ottomans directly, but became a tax subject and the new rulers assigned the administration of the town from 1387 to 1391 to Manuel Palaiologos, ex-governor of Thessaloniki.43 The early Ottoman history of the settlement they named Kavala is unclear, since it is not fully established that there was a town existing at the settlement’s site in the century following the Ottoman conquest. Even though scholars generally agree that ancient Neapolis became Byzantine Christoupolis and later Ottoman Kavala, it is unconfirmed that the settlement experienced an unbroken continuity.44 Ashik Pasha Zade mentions that Kavala as a settlement surrendered by agreement to Lala Sahin sometime around 1387, but not under its Byzantine name of Christoupolis. However the TDV states that Komotini (Gümülcine), Xanthi (İskeçe), Nea Zichni (Zihne), Kavala, Drama, and Serres (Serez) were taken over by Halil Hayreddin Candarli Pasha and given to the Byzantine emperor Ioannes’s son Manuel in 1374, not in 1391 as Sapfo Ageloudi says;45 Halil Pasha had passed away in 1387.46 Both Heath W. Lowry and Ashik Pasha Zade date the capture of Serres by Halil Hayreddin Candarli to 1383 and state that these towns were captured by agreement by Lala Sahin in 1383. Either way, Byzantine Christoupolis fell completely under the

History and urban development of Kavala 51 Ottomans in 1391, as confirmed in the codex from the monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos, in which it states that the town was conquered and burned down to the ground: In this year, the city of Christ, the city of Christoupolis, was destroyed by the incredible Mohammedans, and destroyed by the foundations, with speed, and the inhabitants were distributed to various districts and places.47 All that remained was the castle, where the Ottoman guard probably settled in order to control the most important sea passage in the North Aegean Sea, the strait between Tassos and Kavala, and the semi-mountainous passage north of the city’s port. As professor Sapfo Ageloudi says: In 1425, ten galleys departed the port of Thessaloniki under the command of the Venetian admiral Michael. When he landed at Kavala, he found only a number of tents set up in the place where the old city stood, indicating that the area was now used as a temporary military campsite by the Ottomans.48 The long and hard-fought naval conflict between the two armies resulted in a Venetian triumph; yet Venetian occupation of the area lasted less than a century before the Ottomans recaptured the island of Tassos in the year 1460. The next account of the town comes from a Venetian source and is the first time that Christoupolis is referred to as Kavala. The toponym Kavala is most probably not attributed by the Venetians to the town, but rather to the mountain slope facing the sea from present-day Agios Sila to Kamares. There is also a reference to two deserted castles, one on the mountain and one near the sea. The coastal castle must have been the one constructed by the Turks in 1425.49 Mention of a village/town named Kavala appears in a 1478 tax register (Hicri: 883).50 Under nefs-i Kavala51 (inhabitants of Kavala), the register states that in 1478 Ottoman Kavala was a settlement with total population of 467 inhabitants where Christians were in the majority over the 60 Muslims who lived in the town.52 According to the register, it seems that the site had been vacant of any settlement from the conquest of Christoupolis sometime before 1387, following the conquest of the region, until the capture of the island of Tassos. After that, almost a century later, Kavala was born as a newly established Ottoman village/town. The origin of the town’s new name is unknown, but it was probably given in the thirteenth century by the Genoese, who called it Cavallo,53 based on the bay’s likeness to a horseshoe.54 There are several different theories of the origin of the name.55 Some geographers say that sometimes this town was called Caliba and Bucefala because it was named in honor of Alexander the Great’s horse Bucephalus, and the name Cavala56 is derived from that; but neither of these theories is based on any scientific artifacts.57 It is important to underline that the name of the town, as well as some geographical indications and toponyms, is not always found to correspond between analyzed maps. Sometimes it is possible to observe mistakes in the toponym uncorrected and reproduced in maps that followed.58

52

History and urban development of Kavala

But the toponym is important for understanding the exact location of each mentioned place from both the maps and the narratives/travelogues. Clearly the peninsula resembles the head of a horse. Due to this resemblance, there was probably a myth linking its name to Alexander’s horse Bucephalus. A mystery remains, however: how was the peninsula observed as an aerial view such that its shape could be identified?

Urban development in the sixteenth century A tax register59 from 1519 tells us that Kavala did not grow significantly in the intervening 40 years and was still the size of a village, with 22 Muslim households, 61 Christian households, two bachelors (mücerred), ten widows (bive) and a total (hasıl) of 455 inhabitants.60 Still Christians outnumbered Muslims.61 Kavala lay at the point where the Via Egnatia descended to the shore from high mountains to the north. Caravans along this route were under constant attack by the corsairs lurking along the coast.62 Piri Reis, in his 1521 Kitab-i Bahriyye (Book of the Seas), has written the most accurate portolan of the sixteenth century, offering a detailed description of the Mediterranean world. From Reis’s document (Figure 2.2) we learn that on the top of the peninsula: “West of

Figure 2.2 Map of the island of Tassos from Piri Reis’s Kitab-i Bahriye, 1521. Source: Istanbul University Rare Works Library.

History and urban development of Kavala 53 the river Karasou (Nestos), at the top of a mountain, there is the strait they call Kavala. There, the late Sultan Selim Han (1512–1520) had built a castle”63 (Figure 2.3). Since Kitab-i Bahriye was written in 1521, we are sure that the fortress of Kavala (Figure 2.4) was built, or rebuilt, between 1512 and 1520 on the site of the old Byzantine fortress by Sultan Selim I. This is also confirmed by Khalīfah Haji et al. in Rumeli und Bosna, geographisch beschrieben. Kunst-und industriecomptoir;64 here it states that since Kavala was a haven for pirates, Sultan Selim I put a castle there and the presence of the fortress led to Kavala’s establishment. It is logical to conclude that the structure itself was useless until a garrison was installed there to defend the port and deter pirate raids. A tax register from 1530 records the Christian-to-Muslim population ratio as greater than one. However, this tax register also records 42 men as belonging to the garrison. Even though the tax register says the Christian households are in the majority, the presence of the Muslim soldiers in the garrison, presumably with their families, means that in fact the Muslim inhabitants were in the majority, at 65.2 percent.65 For the purposes of his article on Ottoman building activity along the Via Egnatia, the Dutch scholar Machiel Kiel apparently omitted to read this evidence, as well as misreading the date of this register as 1528 instead of 1530.66 The presence of a military camp site in the area is confirmed as early as 1425 when the Venetian admiral Michael indicates that the area was used as a temporary Ottoman military campsite.67 In another gaff, Kiel argues that the author of the article Kawala in Encyclopaedia of Islam Volume 2 mistakenly attributes to Suleiman the Magnificent the rebuilding of the castle

Figure 2.3 Sultan Selim I fortress built on the top of the peninsular hill, with Ibrahim Pasha aqueduct and Mosque. From an old engraving. Source: Historical Archive of Municipal Museum of Kavala.

54

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.4 Sultan Selim I fortress today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

and the aqueduct during the siege of Rhodes in 1522.68 The author of the entry in the Encyclopaedia does not mention anything about the aqueduct but states that Suleiman fortified Kavala before beginning his campaign against Rhodes and not, as Kiel states, during the siege. Kiel goes even further in an article published in 1992, stating that the aqueduct was built by Ibrahim Pasha;69 just four years later, Kiel changes his mind and attributes its building to Sultan Suleiman. Since so much information in the Encyclopaedia and Kiel’s accounts does not match and given Kiel’s inconsistent interpretation of the facts in his own articles, his research should be taken cum grano salis. Though aware of the tax register from 1530, Kiel omits to take into account the evidence of the castle and a garrison and incorrectly dates the reconstruction of the fortress. In this register, there is an evident presence of Muslim soldiers70 that gives definite evidence of the construction and use of the fort (Figure 2.4, Figure 2.5) by the Ottomans before Suleiman’s reign instead, as confirmed by Piri Reis in the Kitab-I Bahriye, by Sultan Selim I. The works of Sultan Selim I were succeeded by those of his son Suleiman the Magnificent and Suleiman’s grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha. Ibrahim Pasha graced the city with significant public buildings, the most important of which is the aqueduct (Figure 2.6).71 In his 1992 article Kiel states that the aqueduct was built by Ibrahim Pasha and then in 1996 he says it was by Sultan Suleiman; however, after so many contradictions and inaccuracies in these articles, such statements should be also taken with a “grain of salt”. The French traveler Pierre Belon

History and urban development of Kavala 55

Figure 2.5 Interior of the Sultan Selim I fortress of Kavala today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

Figure 2.6 Kavala’s aqueduct today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

56

History and urban development of Kavala

states that it was actually Ibrahim Pasha who restored the aqueduct built on the footprint of an old one by the “Kings of Macedonia”.72 However, other than Belon we have no other reference to prove the existence of an aqueduct before 1547. In order to meet the garrison’s water demands, cisterns supplied water to the fortress; many of these are still visible today. There were 14 fountains, including one built by Sultan Suleiman73 and another that distributed water to the newly built prison in the fort.74 Once more we have no recorded endowments to Kavala in the sixteenth century from either Ibrahim Pasha or Sultan Suleiman. However, it is more accurate to take Belon’s information in the case of the aqueduct since if it was built or rebuilt by Suleiman the Magnificent it would have certainly appeared in the records because even a repair of a minor structure like a small fountain built by the deceased Sultan Suleiman was registered in the archives.75 The aqueduct was approximately 280 meters long and almost 25 meters high at its highest point. The massive structure was built with solid ashlar masonry and arches supported by rectangular pillars. The aqueduct was a three-tier structure. The first tier consisted of single arches and the second tier of alternating single and double arches (Figure 2.7); the last tier encompassed the water canal.76 Water flowed from the nearby mountains to the aqueduct and into the canal, before being distributed throughout the town via the fountains.77 The building program was a priority for Ibrahim Pasha. His first concern was the town’s safety. He reinforced and extended the old town walls,78 creating the first walled settlement (intra muros), known as Varoş or Aşağı­Kavala­Varoşu.79 It is important to mention that while the Ottomans never built walls around settlements in their conquest territories, Kavala was completely walled (intra muros). Its intramural area started with Selim I’s reconstruction of the fortress early in the sixteenth century. It continued when Ibrahim Pasha built the second intramural zone in the flat area below the promontory by the port in the sixteenth century. Later, it expanded in the seventeenth century with the urban spread of the town over the whole peninsula and the establishment of the last intramural unit,80 which consisted of three neighborhoods, Hüseyin Bey, Halil Bey, and Kadi Ahmed Efendi neighborhoods (mahalle). Kavala remained inside these town walls until the mid-nineteenth century, when, as a result of the Tanzimat reforms, it started developing outside them, pushing into the so-called extra muros lands behind the neck of the peninsula.

Figure 2.7 Kavala’s aqueduct.

Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from Lychounas, 2008.

History and urban development of Kavala 57 Inside the added walls, new squares were fashioned and buildings erected. Three mosques are known to have existed during this era, of which the coastal one was the central mosque (Figure 2.8). The town also included baths and caravanserai, and charitable Muslim institutions furnished a medrese, hamam, two kervansarays, a dervish lodge, mekteb, hospice, han,81 and a soup kitchen.82 Most of the information on early Ottoman rule of Kavala is derived from itineraries of foreign travelers, since most of the buildings mentioned in the historical record were lost after the Greek occupation following the Balkan Wars. French traveler Pierre Belon visited the Northern Aegean port of Kavala in early spring 154783 and reported that Sultan Suleiman’s grand vizier, Ibrahim Pasha, endowed a number of charitable institutions on behalf of the inhabitants of Kavala. Belon makes it clear that the charitable works of these institutions were not restricted to Muslims but benefited all. For example, Belon states that the kervansaray-imaret, or inn–soup kitchen which Ibrahim Pasha built as part of his pious foundation (vakıf­), was open to any, regardless of religious affiliation.84 Taking into account that there are hardly any hostelries in Turkey let us speak about the great building which İbrâhim Paşa erected in Kavala, which the Turks call a Carbasharra (sic. Kervansaray). He also built a mosque next to the hostel, where all who pass by are lodged and fed. Our group was only three in number, with our horses, and we were given food for three days in

Figure 2.8 Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, today converted into the Church of St. Nicholas. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

58

History and urban development of Kavala succession without paying anything and without any trouble.… Nobody, be he Christian, Jew, Muslim or idolater is refused here.85

Belon also tells us that Kavala was settled by some 500 Jews brought over by the Ottomans from Hungary,86 probably around 1527–1528 after Ottoman forces cocommanded by Sultan Suleiman and his grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha took Buda and Pest in 1526. Why the Jews were sheltered at Kavala is unknown. It may have been due to Ibrahim Pasha’s attention to all aspects of the physical infrastructure of the town he spent so much time creating; perhaps he took direct action to increase the size of its population.87 In any event, the Jews established a welldeveloped and progressive community in Kavala, with a continuous presence spanning over four centuries. The town grew in population, in 1569 reaching a total of 1280 inhabitants. However, at this time the percentage of Muslims was greater than that of the Christian and Jewish populations, in contrast to previous years when Christians had been in the majority, as reflected in the tax registers from 1478 and 1519. In a tax register from 156988 there were total of 52 Christian households, 30 Jewish households, and 174 Muslim households, of which 61 belonged to the garrison; and there were 32 families, servants in the Ibrahim Pasha’s Imaret. As it grew in population Kavala also changed its demographic structure and became a predominantly Muslim city in the Ottoman Balkans. In the Isolario, the portolan of Benedetto Bordone, a map of Mount Athos and the island of Tassos shows the island’s fortress. Though the town has been registered as Kavala for nearly a century, and Belon in 1526 refers to it by the same name, in 1534, when this portolan was published, the town was referred to by its old name, Christoupolis. In 1591 Gabriele Cavazza, the secretary of Lorenzo Bernardo and the new Venetian ambassador (bailo) to Istanbul, traveled overland along the traditional route of the Via Egnatia to Istanbul. He kept a detailed journal,89 recording every town where they spent the night, including Kavala.90 Cavazza also provides important details of Kavala’s landscape. He refers to the town wall and the fortress, as well as to the Ottoman authority in the city, the Turk bey. He mentions the shipyard and the building of galleys,91 which participated in the Ottoman fleet’s patrols against pirates.92 The famous Ottoman traveler, Evliya Chelebi (Evliya Çelebi) is regarded as one of the most outstanding sources on the Ottoman world seen through the eyes of an “insider”. In 1667 he visited Kavala and described in his Book of Travels what he found there. The town’s walls had seven gates, one opening to the north, another to the south, and the port; however, the town’s remarkable port does not appear to have been very safe on account of the south winds. Religious charitable institutions included five places of worship (mihrabs) in the lower part of the city, the largest of which was devoted to Ibrahim Pasha (Figure 2.9). This mosque was the center of a complex (külliye) of buildings, including Friday mosque (camii), soup kitchen (imaret), theological seminary for students (medrese), primary school for teaching boys the alphabet (sıbyan), lodge for the leader of the dervishes (tekye), inn for merchants and travelers (han), small mosque for the believers of the dervish

History and urban development of Kavala 59

Figure 2.9 View of the Ibrahim Pasha Mosque from the port. Source: IBB Ataturk Library.

lodge (mescid), bazaars or the market hall (çarşı), bathhouse (hamam), building for distributing free water to the thirsty (sebilhane), and assorted other pious works (gayri hayrat hasenatlar).93 Evliya Chelebi also noted that outside of the port gate there were two inns, five shops, and warehouses storing merchandise.94 Evliya Chelebi’s description of seventeenth-century Kavala includes the numbers of houses existing there, the number of existing neighborhoods, town gates, and ports. It says the walls of the upper fortress housed a garrison and it specifies the number of soldiers. Evliya does not provide us with information on the number of inhabitants of the town, but he does give us important information on its urban layout. He states that in the middle-walled town (Orta Hisar), that started growing on the peninsula, were 200 houses without gardens; that leads us to assume that this portion of the town alone had around 1000 inhabitants. This information helps us document Kavala’s urban development from its establishment by Ibrahim Pasha all the way to the mid-to-late seventeenth century.95 However, the archival document from 1609 in which the Muslim townsmen request permission from the judiciary to build the Hüseyin Bey Mosque in the middle town since “the inhabitants of the Kavala castle have come to the judge and say that they fear the infidels …”96 gives us a clear picture that in this part of the town at the time of this request Christians were in the majority – so in order to “convert” this neighborhood into a Muslimdominated one, a request for the building of a mosque was submitted.

60

History and urban development of Kavala

The house program in the walled town Since Evliya refers to a middle-walled town containing some 200 houses without gardens, it is inevitable that we assume that there was a lower city; and indeed, he mentions one, the Aşağı­ Kavala­ Varoşu. This held the foundations of Ottoman Kavala. It was actually the first settlement built by Ibrahim Pasha within the town walls and here Ibrahim set the first neighborhood (mahalle), Ibrahim Pasha’s neighborhood (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10 The urban layout of seventeenth-century Kavala seen by Evliya Çelebi, showing the first Ottoman neighborhood (light gray) and the extension towards the tip of the peninsula (dark gray). Source: graphics re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

History and urban development of Kavala 61 At the center of this neighborhood (mahalle) was the mosque the pasha built by the coast and other structures that were part of the complex (külliye). The market was also located in this flat area and houses grew up the hill all the way towards the castle, the hisar. This first walled nucleus consisted of two functional zones. The lower part with the market and the central mosque was named as Kavala neighborhood or Lower Kavala (Kavala­ Varoşu­ or­ Aşağı­ Kavala­ Varoşu), and the upper residential area, that was called the Upper neighborhood or Yukarı­ Varoşu. These two urban zones were known as inner, iç kale, while beyond the stretch of walls of the Upper neighborhood through a gate one entered the second intramural zone, that of the Middle Castle or Orta Hisar. The houses in the Upper neighborhood were all three-story dwellings with ground floors built of stone and with single door openings, whereas the two upper floors had window openings towards the street (Figure 2.11). Evliya states that in the lower walled town (the first settlement), there were an additional 500 houses, most of which were without gardens, which brings the number of the inhabitants of this part to around 2500. This information gives us a better picture of the urban layout of the town’s first residential neighborhood; its parceling system is related to the morphology of the terrain and the density of the houses determined by the building program. From this information we can extrapolate the nonexistence of gardens within the first nucleus of the Upper neighborhood.

Figure 2.11 House examples in the residential part of Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

62

History and urban development of Kavala

In the middle of this neighborhood’s residential area on the steep hill, a small square sat at the intersection of the streets with a fountain positioned in the middle of it (Figure 2.12), thus providing the households with fresh water that was coming straight from the aqueduct. This fountain was probably part of the nearby mosque, the existence of which is suggested by a minaret that is visible in the watercolor painting of Edward Lear (see Figure 2.18). In 1669, two years after Chelebi’s visit to the town, a French capuchin monk named Robert de Dreux passed through the town. He states that the wall divided the city into two parts, upper and lower. The fortress was the headquarters of the military commander; there one could find the warehouses for ammunition and food. Past the fortress was the Middle Castle or Orta Hisar, and in this part of the castle there were 200 stone-build houses build on the rocks.97 All these accounts imply that already in the sixteenth century Kavala had the typical features of an Ottoman town: Friday mosque located by the coast by one of the three ports, the first settlement positioned inside the new walls, and the complex (külliye) with the bazaar and the residential area above it (Figure 2.13). The Aegean during the seventeenth century was a dangerous sea, fraught with pirate raids and Turko-Venetian face-offs for control of the Mediterranean; the latter ceased at the end of the seventeenth century when the islands of the Aegean Sea and Tassos again became part of the Ottoman Empire. Renowned as the site of constant robberies and killings, the Gulf of Kavala (also called the Gulf of the Contessa, or the Gulf of Rodine on some maps)98 was nicknamed the

Figure 2.12 Fountain in the middle of the residential area of Ibrahim Pasha mahalle. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

History and urban development of Kavala 63

Figure 2.13 View of the mosque and the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood’s walled residential area (late eighteenth or early nineteenth century). Source: courtesy of Professor Konstantinos Lalenis.

“Valley of the Thieves”.99 Despite its notoriety, Kavala remained on the rise throughout the seventeenth century, which set the stage for its further development in the course of the two centuries that followed. The street layout of the lower part of Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood was directly influenced by the position of the settlement, on the flat land by the port and following towards the Upper neighborhood up the slopes of the peninsula, and by its geographical morphology. The flat land where the Varoş neighborhood was positioned had all the public and commercial structures organized within the lower part of the town walls. Two perpendicular main axes penetrated the Kavala­Varoş neighborhood. One was the east–west axis connecting the two town gates, one leading towards Istanbul, and the other opening to the port. The second artery, perpendicular to the first one, came through the gate of the road arriving from Thessaloniki (Selanik) and, following the coast, lost itself and slowly flowed up towards the hill of the upper, residential area where all streets were organized in a free, organic manner. These two main arteries and secondary streets governed the town’s circulation inside its walls from its core, the Friday mosque, down towards the port and up towards the Upper neighborhood (Figure 2.14). The residential neighborhood was situated on the steepest side of the peninsula, which influenced the urban and house plan development. Most of the

64

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.14 Road network in the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood.

Source: graphics re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

History and urban development of Kavala 65 streets were and still are inaccessible with a vehicle, since they are built with stairs rising towards the top of the hill just below the fortress walls. The streets followed the topography and the terrain’s morphology, most of the time terminating in dead ends (cul de sacs); these were narrow, with houses on each side, and with asymmetrical ground floors determined by the street and the parcel layouts, while their upper floors were cantilevered for maximum space, light, and view; those in the Middle Castle or Orta Hisar, on the other hand, were of lower height, usually with a ground and an upper floor, and had wider fronts.

Kavala’s urban development between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries The town’s prosperity commenced with the exploitation of its commercial port. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the establishment of the French consulate (1701), the Venetian consulate (1746), and the French Commercial House (1771) motivated the people of the town to engage in trade activities. In 1789, goods from France, and specifically from the port of Marseilles, were imported to the Macedonian and Thracian inland via Kavala. Correspondingly, products such as wool or rice produced in the region surrounding Kavala, were collected in the port town and exported to France.100 In the early nineteenth century, Kavala’s growth and development was due to its geographic location on the Via Egnatia, connecting Constantinople/Istanbul with Thessaloniki, and because it was an important port on the north coast of Eastern Macedonia for shipping various goods to European cities. Kavala’s shipping connection with other ports brought foreign trade and visitors into the town. During this time, tobacco harvest and production flourished in the area and the port was used for shipment of this product as well. In this period, the people of Kavala still lived on the peninsula inside the town walls (Figure 2.15). The end of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century were marked by a period of great development for Kavala; the most important figure in this was Mehmed Ali Pasha, one of the most remarkable men in modern Islamic history. Mehmed Ali Beğ (later: Paşa)101 was probably of Albanian origin. Born in the European part of the Ottoman Empire in the year 1184 Hicri (August 27, 1771–April 17, 1772), he crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Egypt, established himself as the ruler of this important Ottoman province for almost half a century, and founded a dynasty there that ruled for a hundred years after his death102: The period of Mehmed Ali’s reign, which started in 1805, when he was appointed by the Ottoman Sultan as wali of Egypt and ended in 1848 with his deposition as a result of mental illness, offers one of the most interesting epochs of modern Egyptian history. During this period Egypt, while still forming a part of the Ottoman Empire, assumed an increasingly independent stance, and was finally granted as a hereditary domain to Mehmed Ali by the Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid in 1841.103

66

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.15 Kavala’s neighborhoods and public structures in the nineteenth century. Source: graphics re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

History and urban development of Kavala 67 Known as The Pasha in Egypt, and to Europeans as The Viceroy, Mehmed Ali was powerful enough to bring the Mamluk rule in Egypt to an end. Mehmed Ali was able to create an elite that employed members of his family, Kavala townsmen and friends, and people from the bureaucracy he founded in Egypt.104 Mehmed Ali drastically changed the position of Egypt within the empire by strengthening economic relations with the West, fundamentally changing Egypt’s social and cultural outlook105 in the process. Mahomet Ali was a Napoleon in his way. He would have annihilated the Greeks as a nation at the beginning of the last century had not the European Powers stopped him. He looked to Egypt and the Nile basin as a region where he could become emperor. His invasion of Syria startled Sultan Mahmoud. Russia was willing to help in crushing him, but England and France appeared on the scene and compelled terms to be arranged. Mahomet All became governor of Syria. He plotted; the Sultan tried to smash him, and was smashed himself. Mahomet Ali frightened Europe. So the Powers intervened again. He resigned all claims to Syria, but Turkey was compelled to yield to him and his heirs the pashalik of Egypt. Having given Turkey so much trouble, he now has a hodja to read daily prayer for the peace of his soul, whilst the poor of his native town eat the rice he willed to them.106 Evidence of Mehmed Ali’s affection for his birthplace was seen in the improvements he made to Kavala. He rebuilt the aqueduct constructed three centuries earlier by Suleiman the Magnificent’s grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha (Figure 2.16) and brought water inside the walled town, where the Muslims lived.107

Figure 2.16 Drawing of Kavala.

Source: from the book Old Tracks and New Landmarks by Mary Walker, 1897.

68

History and urban development of Kavala

It was known that Kavala was undeniably a Turkish town and there were no Christian churches within the gates.108 The double-walled town was occupied by Turks. The entrance to the walled town was through a gate and the town’s urban layout consisted of bends and corners and shady passages with mosques and minarets109 (Figure 2.17). A zigzag rise, the summit of a range, and then quaint Kavala, on a tongue of rock sticking impudently into the rich blue of the Aegean Sea, the island of Tassos not far away, and then in the distance, like a little cloud rising to the heavens, Mount Athos the holy. The way down the coast-side to the town is crooked. The road is mended with marble; the dust is marble; heaps of marble are on the banks for repairs. The sun touches the marble and makes it glisten like myriads of diamonds. Kavala, resting on the sea, double walled, held to the mainland, it seems, by a willowy aqueduct, is occupied by Turks. But Kavala has grown, and behind the neck of the peninsula spreads fan-wise a Greek town. The Greek quarter is not distinguished. To reach the Turkish quarter one goes through a not over-wide stone gateway. Kavala is all climbing rocky stairs and coming down rocky stairs. No vehicle is possible. It is all bends and corners and shady passages and mosques and minarets and peeps of the blue sea and basking sunshine. The color is Neapolitan. Frowsy and creak-jointed Turks, who ought to be reading the Koran, wrap splash-tinted sashes round their waists, have

Figure 2.17 Panorama of Kavala showing the old walled town, the new structures built in the plains by the neck of the peninsula, and the many minarets. Source: IBB Ataturk Library.

History and urban development of Kavala 69 turbans of white or green, and baggy breeks that are vermilion. The atmosphere is hot and slothful. It is just the place for a Turk. It makes even an Infidel feel like a Turk. My hotel was a poor thing to look at. But it was a good place to stay at. It is kept by a stout German dame, called Kathe. Every European who visits Kavala knows Kathe. She is a mother to them all. She cooks and is the best cook in Macedonia. She knows how you like your food and sees it is served clean.110 Greeks started moving into Kavala from various parts of the country because they needed workers to support the expanding tobacco industry in the region. Kavala was the export port for this crop. The Christians, after getting a permission from the Ottoman authorities, built their quarter in Kavala on the plain located behind the neck of the peninsula (Figure 2.18). By the end of the seventeenth century Kavala had grown into a small city with several other neighborhoods in the Middle Castle forming the second intramural area and with a population of nearly 3000 people.111 It was a place with many mosques, all located in this second intramural area where the neighborhoods of Hüseyin Bey mahalle, Halil Bey mahalle and Kadi Ahmed Efendi mahalle were all walled on the less steep slopes of the peninsula towards the south, in the so-called Orta Hisar or Middle Castle (Figure 2.19). The town spread over the second intramural area, Orta Hisar, and just below the castle, hisar, flowing up the whole peninsula toward its tip. The town now possessed nearly 700 dwellings located in the five neighborhoods, distributed across not just a lower town but a newly developed middle town.112

Figure 2.18 Edward Lear’s watercolor painting of Kavala, 1856. Source: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Gennadius Library.

70

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.19 View of the middle-walled town with the fortress and the twentieth-century expansions in the distance. Source: Historical Archive of Municipal Museum of Kavala.

In the first decades of the eighteenth century, Kavala’s fort, its tower, and its town walls fell into very bad condition due to lack of maintenance. In 1735, the imperial architect (hassa mimar) Suleiman Halife was appointed to oversee the necessary repairs, especially to the walls on the west side of the middle town, which were completely destroyed and had collapsed over the harbor. A wall of the castle tower that had been destroyed and the roof of a nearby police station were also on the list of necessary repairs.113 The archival document in BOA offers important information on the condition of the walls as well as the construction works that took place in the town and on the public structures. Batıkulu Mehmet Pasha, appointed to explore these places and report back to the officials, documented a detailed list of the damages and works that needed to be done. This record was of the explorations and the measurements carried out by the above-mentioned Batıkulu Mehmet Pasha, one of the imperial architects, Suleiman Halife, and notables of the town of Kavala. From this document we find out that the harbor suffered from the collapse of the west wall that was just above it and the need for scaffolding for the rebuild. In addition, the wall near the entrance gate to the fort had to be rebuilt since it was damaged too. The wall of the tower in the fortress was also damaged and needed repairs but windows for it were ordered as well. The roofs of the fortress and of the police station that was located within the walls of the fort needed to be rebuilt as well. This document gives a detailed list of materials needed, such as timber, nails, and so on, as well as the cost of the work, and was written by the

History and urban development of Kavala 71 Kavala’s judge (kadı) Huseyin. It notes that the town walls, the fort, and the other structures in it, such as the arsenal, will constantly be subject to repairs due to their damage.114 The arteries of the main road penetrated Kavala’s second intramural area through two gates located on the east and west side of the north wall of the second enclave. Moving from north to south on the west side of the peninsula, one of these arteries passed the northwest gate to enter the Hüseyin Bey mahalle dominated by the Hüseyin Bey Mosque (Figure 2.20), built around 1605/06 to introduce Muslims to this predominantly Christian area.115 The mosque probably had a rectangular plan, was covered with a pitched roof, and had a not-too-tall minaret;116 the nearby fountain, of which remains are still visible in situ, was built later, by Mehmed Ali Pasha, to provide drinking water not only for the primary school (mekteb) that was just across the street but also for the people of Kavala117 (Figure 2.21). The street continued and forked into two main roads, one carrying on towards the end of the peninsula to the south and the other leading upwards and east toward the upper neighborhood of Halil Bey where the small complex (külliye) consisting of the mosque (Figure 2.22), built as a mescid somewhere before 1673/1674,118 and the theological seminary (medrese) (Figure 2.23) stand. Halil Bey Mosque had a rectangular plan covered with a large dome supported by four

Figure 2.20 No longer extant Hüseyin Bey Mosque across the street from the Imaret külliye, c.1920. Source: BAU OTAK.

72

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.21 The remains of the fountain built by Mehmed Ali Pasha in Hüseyin Bey mahalle. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

Figure 2.22 Halil Bey Mosque today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

History and urban development of Kavala 73

Figure 2.23 Halil Bey medrese today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

tromps, a small niche (mihrab) decorated with muqarnas, three arched porches with a gallery, probably added later, and a minaret detached from the mass of the mosque. Inside the mosque a gallery was opened toward the internal space. The theological seminary (medrese) had an “L”-shaped plan with an open porch on both sides and rooms accessible from it. The mosque was probably also used as a classroom (dershane) since the theological seminary did not have one. Moving past this point along the east side of the peninsula, reaching the ridge and going down towards the city’s northeast gate, the road passed through the Kadi Ahmed Efendi neighborhood (mahalle) with its mosque, probably built before 1704/05119 just below the fort or hisar. Nothing is left today of this mosque except the foundations of its minaret (Figure 2.24). From the size of the foundation we can assume that the minaret was probably bulky in its outlook, and it was probably attached to the mass of the mosque because of its octagonal plan. One of the greatest structures built in the second decade of the nineteenth century was located in the Hüseyin Bey neighborhood (mahalle) facing towards the west and overlooking the port of Kavala below the cliffs. Mehmed Ali Pasha’s Imaret complex, as it is still known, was positioned and built at the edge of this side of the peninsula (Figure 2.25). Growing up in Kavala, a small town with a population of no more than 3000 inhabitants at the end of eighteenth century,120 Mehmed Ali apparently received

74

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.24 Kadi Ahmed Efendi Mosque’s minaret foundation remains today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

Figure 2.25 Postcard from Kavala with the customs building, the Imaret, and the residential area on the hill. Source: courtesy of professor Kostantinos Lalenis.

History and urban development of Kavala 75 no formal education. He acknowledged being illiterate until the age of 47 (1817–1818) when he had learned to read and write.121 Perhaps his longstanding illiteracy drove him to expend enormous energy and resources creating educational infrastructure in his home town. His legacy continued long after his death. Kavala’s young Muslims were educated and the poor fed in his Imaret complex,122 which was built between 1808 and 1821123 (Figure 2.26). The Imaret complex was a structure built by Mehmed Ali’s charitable foundation that besides food for the poor also provided education for Kavala’s youth. A rich description of the Imaret was presented in the account of Fraser’s travels, in which he depicts the complex and its service in a very delightful way. Kavala has many poor. I went to the imaret or poor-house, where the needy, the halt, and the blind crawl three mornings a week to receive rice and soup. […] Eight thousand pounds’ weight of rice comes every month from Egypt, a legacy from Mahomet Ali Pasha, who was born at Kavala in 1769. […] Sprawling on a rocky eminence is the medrasa, or monastery, where are three hundred men preparing to be Moslem priests.124 They come poor at the age of fourteen or fifteen, and after a stay of thirty years are allowed to marry. The courtyard is shady with orange trees. The balconies are broad and cool. The thick-walled cells are simple and with little slats of windows looking out upon the bluest of seas.

Figure 2.26 The Imaret complex following restoration (from the sea) – with the Kavala Kalesi (fortress) in the background. Source: BAU OTAK.

76

History and urban development of Kavala I was an Infidel, “a dog of a Christian”. I had stood for a casual moment at the monastery gate when a white-turbaned priest hastened forward. Would I enter and rest? I was pleased, and he seemed delighted. Other priests came. […] They wanted to talk politics. There is no freedom of the Press in Turkey, and all that is learnt comes through official channels. They knew a revolution was breeding. They knew how great England was. They knew England was friendly to Turkey. They knew it was England who kept Russia out of Constantinople; but now, why did not England compel Bulgaria to stop her menacing attitude? England was so rich! Why did not England give money to Turkey to buy arms to fight the Bulgarians? Why were the Bulgarians to be allowed to have Macedonia – the Turks recognize Macedonia is ultimately to be lost – when it is Turkish territory? And Russia was behind it all! […] All over are evidences of the affection of Mahomet Ali for his birthplace. He rebuilt the fine aqueduct so that the whole of the town, inside the walls, has abundant water, whilst those outside the walls, Christians, are put to enormous expense in obtaining water, which has been diverted from their part. Moreover, by his will he left a large sum to be used to lighten the taxes of those who live within the walls. Those outside, as a consequence, pay heavier taxes. This does not increase the friendly feeling between Moslems and Christians.125

In 1813, the Sultan himself issued an Imperial Decree to be used by Mehmed Ali for his foundation (vakfiye) as a reward for defeating the havaric and the müşrikler126 that had occupied the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina (Harameyn) and made the holy pilgrimage (hajj) difficult to fulfill because the road to Hijaz was closed as a result of these attacks.127 Due to these military successes, Mehmed Ali Pasha was granted the island of Tassos (Taşözü­Adası) by the sultan for the future use of his charity works.128 The duty of opening the pilgrimage route by destroying this group of attackers is given by Sultan Mahmut Harameynin’s servant, Arab and Acem’s Sultan and the enemy of kufr (infidel) and shirk (polytheists) to Gazi Mehmet Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt and the Seraglio of the Hijaz Region. Mehmet Ali Pasha easily accomplished this difficult task with the help of God and the support of the Sultan. The incomes from the island of Tassos were dedicated to the theological seminary (medrese) that was built in Kavala. A separate document records the donation of the island of Tassos to Mehmed Ali Pasha. The Pasha has devoted himself to earning the approval of God and his prophet in this island to meet the daily and annual expenses of the library consisting of 60 rooms, cells and a classroom, and various books belonging to different sciences.129 In other words, money from the island of Tassos was allocated to the school and the library of the Imaret complex. This allocation, according to the pious foundation (vakfiye), included the following division of the incomes:130

History and urban development of Kavala 77 One-fourth of the income of the island and the increase of the money (72 money bags with akçe) will belong to teachers, students, trainees, officials, and servants of the school. The remaining foundation incomes will be spent to repair the medrese and the library. The proceeds will be in the hands of the foundation manager. After the morning prayer (sabah namazi) and after the afternoon prayer (ikindi namazi), two tefsir,131 hadith,132 fiqh,133 and other higher sciences will be taught. The first teacher will get a salary of 300 kurush and the second one will get 200 kurush. In the case of the death of the first appointed müderris,134 the second müderris will be appointed as the chief müderris. This document explains in detail the work of the educational institution and the regulations relating to the appointment of teachers as well as that of the regulations about accepting and discharging students and about their scholarships and their accommodation in the dormitory rooms. The document describes how 50 rooms will belong to students, two students in each room, and ten to the institutes (internship teacher, teacher candidates, etc.). It is a detailed description of the “house rules” in the medrese, such as legal consequences if a student is absent longer than a limited period of time (though exception was made if those visits were related to hajj, the Anatolian side, visits to the “Tuna Mansion” and visits to the Coast of Rumelia, but no longer than 30 days), or concerning students’ personal predicaments, in case of marriage or in case of having an illegal guest in staying in the students’ rooms etc. All decisions related to the contributions made by the foundation were coming from the foundation itself. It was also clarified that if by any chance these conditions were difficult to obey, the incomes of the foundation would only go to the Muslims. The foundation also set necessary amounts of supplies that were needed for different purposes for the Imaret complex such as: Three kilos of candles to burn in the classroom and 400 kilograms of olive oil will be given each month to be used for light in the medrese’s courtyard and the medrese itself. Seven kilograms of olive oil cannot be enough, so eight more kilograms of olive oil per month will be added and total of 15 kilograms of olive oil will be used each month. These will be used in the four candlesticks located on the sides of the mihrab of the dershane; three kilos of candle will be purchased monthly.135 In another part of the foundation (vakfiye) we see the confirmation of the construction of the Imaret: The charitable foundation was established by Mehmed Ali Pasha devoted as a real foundation for God’s resurrection as it is in the town of Kavala in Rumelia, where he had built school and library to teach the Qur’an to Muslim children.136

78

History and urban development of Kavala

The expenditures and other conditions expected from the foundation were detailed, presented and explained to the officials on a meeting held in 1817 where they decided on the rules and regulations related to the work of the school. Salaries and financial and other support were recorded in detail as follows: The teacher in the school will be given 120 akçe, that makes 100 kurush annually. Again, the teacher will be given money for clothing. The person who is the chief caliph (halife)137 in the school will be given 60 akçe salary and 60 kurush for thobes (ferace). The second halife will be given 40 akçe per day and 50 kurush per year. Each of the 50 children in school will receive 3 kurush a month. Each of the 20 children who are interns (mulazim) will be given 60 akçe worth of money. Every year during the spring season when the children go to a field trip (mesireye), 100 cents will be spent for the trip. In the winter, a hundred kurush of wood will be purchased. Every year, at the blessed Kadir Night, which is the twenty-seventh night of the Mubarak Ramadan month, every one of these 50 children will be covered with a set of clothes (made of good quality fabric), one robe, one knee?, one fez, so they will be decently dressed. The children in the school will be given 50 kurush in cash and one coat as a reward for those who will memorize the Qur’an (i.e. those who know the Qur’an by heart), in order to create competition among the students in memorizing the verses of the Qur’an. Small carpets and mats will also be provided from the foundation’s incomes to decorate the school and renovate it if necessary. It is in his possession that the conditions of the foundations that the Pasha had previously established and registered can be changed, reduced, and reorganized. The person who is the imam in the school, as previously determined, will be getting 20 akçe per day. Since this is a low wage, an increase of 40 akçe will be added and he will get 60 akçe per day. The Muezzin’s salary was 10 akçe per day and he will get an increase of 30 akçe and in total he will get 40 akçe per day. The person who is serving as a door man and is also responsible for cleaning the school (kayyımlık) is going to get a 20 akçe increase and make 40 akçe every day because he is also appointed to maintain the works around the classroom (dershane). The rules had to be obeyed according the sultan’s handwritten ferman, which was given to the Pasha, who used the Imaret as property. As explained in detail in the foundation (vakfiye), the land of the island of Tassos among the Mediterranean islands, that was one of the endowments of the Pasha, was allocated to the duties of the land rentals.138 In the year 1899 the Egyptians made an official request for permission to upgrade one of the medreses that was called mühendishane from a middle school to an engineering high school. The official decision for this transformation was made by the late Mehmed Ali Pasha’s endowment but the officials and the Ministry of Education did not want to issue such a permit because the school’s headmaster had invited foreign diplomats (we do not know which), an act which was

History and urban development of Kavala 79 deemed “inappropriate conduct”. Eventually the upgrade of the school was completed but the students suffered as a result of these political delays. Even though there were disputes on opening this school, the students, at the end of their education and upon graduating, still received their diplomas.139 The Imaret complex was more than a charitable institution; it was an educational establishment organized to maintain all aspects of student life in a very responsible way, providing education related not only to the study of the Qur’an but also to the sciences, offering financial support, and also sentencing those who did not respect and obey the rules of the institution. Built in stages, the completed complex included two seminaries (medreses), 36 dormitory rooms, a library, a soup kitchen, a pavilion, a bath (hamam), and administrative offices.140 The Imaret complex was integrated in the structure of the old town, following the traditional introvert internal spatial arrangement, and adapted to the physical environment. It consisted of four parts positioned in a row, each part organized around an internal patio (Figure 2.27). The first structure from the north side was the soup kitchen (imaret), with the secondary school (mekteb) in the northeast corner. The first seminary (medrese) with the main classroom (dershane) was in the southeast corner, and next to it was the second theological school (medrese) with the second classroom (dershane) in the northeast corner and the “wet” spaces along the south side.141 The offices of the administration of the pious foundation (vakıf­) were located at the south end. The classroom and the primary school (Figure 2.28) structures were emphasized by highlighting them with use of domes (Figure 2.29). The walls of the Imaret complex were built of alternate courses of carved stones and scattered bricks up to the point where arches and domes began; from then onward construction exclusively utilized bricks.142 The Imaret complex was remarkable for the simplicity of its structural elements, and the decoration of its external and internal surfaces. The most exciting architectural elements were the internal patios and the continuous succession of closed, semi-hypaethral, and open-air spaces, with equivalent gradual shadings.143 The complex’s uniqueness was that it was built later than most such foundations in the Ottoman era, and also that it was clearly intended to serve exclusively as an educational center.144 Moreover, it shows that a small town like Kavala, if ruled by a powerful and important benefactor like Mehmed Ali Pasha, could be graced with a huge and elegant complex (külliye) even though these were usually built only in the big cities.145 The appearance of two medreses, one a theological seminary (medrese) and the other a school of engineering (mühendishane), together with a primary school for teaching the Qur’an (sıbyan­ mektebi), and a second mekteb (secondary school), virtually under the same roof (Figure 2.30), was unprecedented in Ottoman practice. But when one takes into account that all the other structures (the lecture hall, the library, the soup kitchen, etc.) were built with the sole purpose of serving the needs of the students and their teachers, it is clear that Mehmed Ali’s focus definitely was on meeting the educational needs of his former fellow Muslim townsmen and the corporeal needs of the town’s poor.146 Each of the neighborhoods in the middle-walled town had its organic street patterns and cul de sacs, some ending simply at a house or the rocky cliffs on the

80

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.27 Imaret in the urban fabric in Hüseyin Bey neighborhood in the middle town. Source: graphics re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

History and urban development of Kavala 81

Figure 2.28 The primary school (mekteb) seen from the third inner courtyard. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2017.

82

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.29 Section of the second medrese with view of the, now lost, second dershane. Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from Stefanidou, 1987.

Figure 2.30 First floor plan of the Imaret complex with its different structures. Source: redrawn by V. Ivkovska from Stefanidou, 1987.

east side of the peninsula. In each of these neighborhoods there was a small square, usually located in front of the mosque, and a fountain with water supplied from the aqueduct. The main road artery coming from the port and going up towards the second intramural area (Middle Castle) entered through the west gate of the middle town and led toward the tip of the peninsula on the west (today’s Poulidou Street). It divided the Hüseyin Bey neighborhood into two parts, bifurcating at the mosque and continuing in two arms; one went towards the tip of the peninsula parallel to the cliffs on the west and the other (today’s Mehmet Ali Street) went towards the upper part of the hill towards the Halil Bey neighborhood to the point where the Halil Bey Mosque and medrese were located. The secondary streets between these two arteries in the Hüseyin Bey neighborhood were all perpendicular to the

History and urban development of Kavala 83 main ones, very steep, accessible only by pedestrians and ending in dead ends (cul de sacs). This whole neighborhood had an elliptical circulation, so anyone following the main arteries would end at the entry point to the area, the Hüseyin Bey Mosque down towards the west gate (Figure 2.31).

Figure 2.31 Road network in the middle town.

Source: V. Ivkovska, graphics re-elaborated from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

84

History and urban development of Kavala

The streets in the upper, Halil Bey neighborhood, were somewhat different than those in the Hüseyin Bey neighborhood. This part of the peninsula faced east and looked straight toward the island of Tassos. From Hüseyin Bey neighborhood, from the south, the main artery (today’s Anthemiou Street) continued towards the fortress at the top of the hill and was positioned parallel to the cliffs edging the east side of the peninsula. The network of secondary streets in this area formed small blocks in an organic grid, especially around the Halil Bey Mosque and medrese. The rest of the secondary streets were all perpendicular to the main artery (Anthemiou Street), ending at the steep cliffs to the east and creating a cul de sac completely open to the majestic view of the sea and the island of Tassos. The same artery coming down from Hüseyin Bey neighborhood (Poulidou Street), towards the cape of the peninsula, was interrupted by its hilly morphology and was re-adapted into a pedestrian stairway that continued in a semicircular curve moving upwards towards the north, passing through Halil Bey neighborhood and reaching towards the higher point of the hill in the Kadi Ahmed Efendi neighborhood; from there it continued towards the fortress at the top. Having reached the highest point (via Anthemiou Street) the road proceeded towards the east gate of the middle town and straight out of the enclave towards the empty expanses behind the aqueduct and the shipyard by the seashore. In this neighborhood, all of the secondary streets ended in dead ends, even those facing the steep rocky cliffs towards the eastern side, which were open towards the sea and the island of Tassos. The section of the neighborhood on the side just below the fortress was very steep since the hill at this point was moving towards its highest point. The secondary street network here was made of stairways, making the houses positioned on them more accessible for pedestrians but inaccessible in any other way, even today. All the secondary streets in the middle town had an organic flow, following and adjusting to the terrain and yet managing to allow the inhabitants access to their dwellings. All streets, except the main arteries (Poulidou Street, Ali Mehmet Street, Anthemiou Street, and Ioustianou Street) terminated in dead ends at a house, a garden, or simply the steep cliffs of the peninsula. Interestingly, the area just around the Halil Bey complex reveals a small formation of block-like parcels; these suggest the beginning of an orthogonal grid system, not completely in the conventional grid manner but rather an organic square-ish shape of blocks. We can summarize at this point that the main layout of Ottoman era Kavala was positioned on the peninsula in three walled sections (intra muros). The first and oldest was the fortress built at the top of the peninsula. The second intramural development was the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood located from the coastline up toward to the fort on the northwest side of the area. The third phase proceeded south and occupied the whole area of the peninsula. Kavala’s historic peninsula is defined by natural features such as the cliffs, and artificial ones such as the harbor, the city walls, and the aqueduct. The area consists of several sites, each with its own character, that are products of local historical development and of the terrain and its configuration; all these are incorporated into the town’s urban area. Even though today the historic town is seen as a single urban nucleus, thorough analysis identifies separate smaller urban units. Inside the old

History and urban development of Kavala 85 Ottoman era nucleus, four defined localities can be determined, and four Muslim districts can be identified. These include Hüseyin Bey neighborhood, Kadi Ahmed Efendi neighborhood, Halil Bey neighborhood, and the first walled part of the town, the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood (Figure 2.32).

Figure 2.32 The neighborhoods of Ottoman Kavala intra muros (fourteenth to eighteenth centuries). Source: V. Ivkovska, graphics re-elaborated from Kavala Municipality map, 1923.

86

History and urban development of Kavala

The historical peninsula and the town positioned on it went through phases of transformation of the land plots and parcels. Though the urban fabric was constantly changing, it retained its main arteries, Poulidou Street and Mehmed Ali Street. The land plots, however, constantly underwent change, especially in the urban areas not affected by the flow of the main streets. These changes can be observed in a 1911–1912 urban plan for the peninsula that was never executed, so the town kept its primary organic distribution of the land plots.147

House program and typologies The residential blocks in the historic peninsula of today’s Kavala have different shapes. Depending on the area of the peninsula they occupy, they either narrow or widen a bit (if they comprise two land plots). Some blocks only face the town walls or the sea; others positioned in the middle-walled town have façades free on all four sides, looking toward either the streets, the sea, or the gardens, because the lack of artificial and natural boundaries in this area permits more free organization of the space. Those that are positioned in the northern extension, the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood, have more fluid forms. The houses positioned within these freely, organically organized blocks, are entered through the typical tiny cul de sacs.148 Compared to the houses built in the sixteenth century in the Upper neighborhood of Ibrahim Pasha mahalle, these newer dwellings built in the middle town dating from the seventeenth century had wider, more spacious floor plans, open to light and view (Figure 2.33). Some of them also

Figure 2.33 House with symmetrical floor plan and wide front. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2014.

History and urban development of Kavala 87 had gardens, especially those on the east side of the peninsula facing the island of Tassos. The distribution of parcels on this side was more orthogonal now; rather than being completely organic and randomly organized, it followed a grid, where possible, with streets or stairs perpendicular to the sea front. The most respected and noble house of eighteenth-century Kavala was Mehmed Ali’s House, built close to the tip of the peninsula in the middle-walled town and facing the island of Tassos to the east, the Bay of Kavala to the west and Mount Athos to the south. His house is the only one in Kavala built as a mansion (konak) with architectural features befitting the home of an important, wealthy Ottoman family. The house owned by Mehmed Ali’s grandfather has special importance in the town’s vernacular architecture. The house is also important not only because of Mehmed Ali’s importance as a Viceroy of Egypt, but also because it is here that he grew up after his parents died.149 The house was probably one of few mansions in Kavala, and certainly the only one preserved today. It has a ground floor built in stone and an upper floor built in wood. Inside the ground floor there is a covered courtyard and stairs leading to the upper floor. The house has a broad front layout and rooms positioned along one side of the enclosed balcony (hayat/sofa). The enclosed balcony on the upper floor has a view toward the Aegean Sea and the island of Tassos (Figure 2.34). This is the only house preserved in Kavala that demonstrates the division of space into selamlık and harem which was characteristic of Ottoman Muslim houses, especially of the richer families. The house, today used as a museum,

Figure 2.34 Mehmed Ali’s House. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2014.

88

History and urban development of Kavala

maintains its Ottoman quintessence. It is located on steep terrain. The ground floor is built in stone and sits on solid rock (Figure 2.35). Above this level rises the wooden upper floor of the house with its extruded bay windows adding to the plasticity of the structure. This house has a strong relation with the landscape due to the retaining walls that elevate the house above the ground and the window openings on every side of the wooden upper level. The tip of the peninsula somehow was still vacant of any neighborhood or any housing program, probably because it was too exposed to the open, undefended seas, even though the Greek scholars always refer to this section of the town as the “Christian neighborhood”. Even if Evliya mentions that the middle town, that is, the second walled town, had a church, it is still arguable which church he referred to. One thing is certain; the tip of the peninsula was vacant of religious structures until the 1900s and the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Ekklisia Kimisi Theotokou) was not constructed until 1957. Recent excavations, made below the mosque of Halil Bey, built sometime before 1672/73 in the center of the middle-walled enclave, unearthed a Byzantine three-nave basilica probably visible at the time of Evliya’s visit to the town; it is debatable whether this church was operating at all, knowing that after the conquest of Christoupolis the town was leveled to the ground and nothing was left. Nonetheless it is significant that the portion of the town lying on the historic peninsula is called Panagia and a church bearing this name was registered in the

Figure 2.35 Schematic plan of the ground floor of Mehmed Ali’s House before its restoration in 2004. Source: V. Ivkovska, redrawn from Stefanidou, 1986.

History and urban development of Kavala 89 BOA archives. The registry dates from 1910 and was related to the ownership of the land adjusted to two churches, Agios Pavlos and Panagia.150 The Agios Pavlos church was built outside the town walls in the so-called Çaylar area; however a church with the name Panagia does not seem to exist in Kavala today except the one located at the tip of the historical peninsula dedicated to the Virgin Mary; Panagia is one of the titles of Mary, mother of Jesus, used especially in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity151 so it is probably from here that the whole historic peninsula got its name. The residential urban morphology was decided by several factors besides the geographical disposition of the settlement. People’s living habits, traditions, and religions influenced the morphological development of the houses in the settlement. A typo-morphological analysis was made of the floorplans of the dwellings as well as their material and aesthetic characteristics to address the issues of type, typology and morphology, materials, and façade development and appearance. It looks at whether and how there were clearly determined typologies and at their changes to the built dwelling’s plans. It follows the development of the housing program within the town walls and deals with the new architectural stylistic tendencies that developed outside the town walls as a result of political and social transformations in the empire resulting from the Tanzimat reforms. The analysis addresses the transformation of house plan types and determines if there was a dominant type of dwelling plan. It also considers the impact of the cultural, religious, and social factors that contributed to the development of these structures. The need for shelter and protection prompted the development of the dwellings. Nothing of the urban forms, especially the residential ones, was left from Byzantine Christoupolis and the new inhabitants of the historic peninsula needed shelter. Since the very beginning of its Ottoman era life, Kavala had been inhabited by both Muslims and Christians living hand-in-hand within the town walls. However, separation of neighborhoods in the lower town and upper town, especially in the sixteenth century, gives us an idea of how urban life influenced the housing development program. The lower town was the commercial area, where fewer homes were built, but the upper parts of this first nucleus were densely built. There is no material evidence or written documentation available to determine the ownership of the dwellings. It is interesting to note that during the 1923 population exchange all the houses fell into the arms of the new Greek state and the National Bank of Greece has registers of ownership that were impossible to examine even for the purpose of research. These registers had their last Ottoman owners listed. After that, new Greek owners settled in the existing dwellings. The situation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was even more difficult to examine due to the inaccessibility of the dwellings and lack of research materials even on isolated cases. Based on population records it can be assumed that all these different religious groups lived together. But more important are the archival documents that inform us that in some neighborhoods Christians were dominant, so the Muslims needed mosques to outnumber them. This in a

90

History and urban development of Kavala

way helps figure and determine that the primary dwellings were built and owned by Christians, which influenced the housing program and the distribution of the space. Their remoteness to their Muslim neighbors was a factor that influenced the Muslim house appearance, which was, however, adjusted to their religious and everyday life needs. The Muslim house belonged to the woman and was her secluded space, closed and protected from the eye of the outside observer but also, inside, from male visitors, who used a separate space so as not to mix with the women. On the other hand, the Christian house was open, the interior space was shared, there was no segregation based on gender, and often several families lived together under the same roof in so-called fraternal houses. In this sense, even when we take a look at Muslim houses further to the east (in south Anatolia such as those in Mardin, for example, or the vernacular in Saudi Arabia), where most of them are closed to the outside environment such as streets but open to an internal courtyard, we can conclude that in the case study the homes were pretty much open, not only in their floor plans, even when those were minimal in space, but also on the upper floors where windows created a harmonious rhythm of solids and voids, introducing light and view to the internal space. As in many multi-story dwellings in the Balkans, the ground floors were always built of solid masonry while light wooden floors developed above. These were open towards the streets, their gardens, if they had them, opening towards the vistas and sunlight. The houses, even though densely placed and sometimes in a row one next to another, had a spatial unity and could be distinguished one from another as separate aesthetic entities from the outside. The house is not only determined by its plan layout. However, the only thorough research on Kavala with respect to this subject has been conducted by the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Aristotle in Thessaloniki and included a survey of some of the house plans in the historical peninsula. The only research that could be done was based on this data and their analysis and comparisons to the mainstream represented by the capital of the empire and its influences and influential zones. The dwellings in the urban fabric are positioned as free-standing structures linearly aligned with the streets. All the axes of the dwellings in the historic peninsula are perpendicular to the slope, chasing the view and the light. The research by the University of Aristotle unearthed the typological organization of the houses, revealing three types of house plan – A, B, and C (Figure 2.36).152 Type A is the simplest one, usually consisting of two rooms, one closed and the other semi-open. It is the most basic type of house in the historical peninsula, a twostory structure with closed balcony that acted as a sofa or sitting room and had vertical access in the form of a staircase. It had three subtypes, all determined by the position of the hall in the plan. In the B type the sitting room which gives access to the other rooms does not have the major role that it has in the A-type house, and sometimes it can be so narrow that the rooms are positioned on either side of it, without it receiving any direct light. In this B-type house the hall becomes a corridor, being so narrow that it contains only the stairs and only allows access to the rooms. What we refer to as a hall or sofa used as a sitting room in the A plan type, here in the

Source: V. Ivkovska, redrawn from Kalogirou et al., Kavala intra muros, 1992.

Figure 2.36 House plan types A, B, and C existing in the historical peninsula of Kavala.

History and urban development of Kavala 91

92

History and urban development of Kavala

B plan type lost its function and became a hallway.153 According to Kalogirou, the stairs in this type lead to a smaller room that is positioned at the center of the house but does not have the physical characteristics and functions of a hall (sofa) (Figure 2.37) and can be read more as a distributing space.154 The structures belonging to this type have two stories and narrow fronts. The C-type houses that were built in the historical peninsula were probably the latest, having wider plans and fronts due to their position on the site. The Ottoman vernacular style in general had undergone three major stages. Very little is known of the domestic forms from the fifteenth and sixteenth century. This is why an analysis of the development of the Ottoman house types cannot be taken further back than the seventeenth century. The development can be followed in three phases that correspond to three distinct types.155 The first phase is the seventeenth-century house, the second is the eighteenth-century, and the third is the nineteenth-century house. These phases are believed to have originated in Istanbul before spreading over the Marmara region and the further geographical territories of the Ottoman Empire. Some of the types from previous periods still continued to live in parallel with the contemporary style, but mostly these older house types prevailed in the provinces. From the development of the urban area of the Ottoman era Kavala we conclude that in the decades since the Ottomans lost rule of the town there has been

Figure 2.37 House on Mehmed Ali Street. Source: V. Ivkovska, 2017.

History and urban development of Kavala 93 constant dramatic impact on the urban fabric. The impact has affected the view of the area from the sea and internal routes alike. The Ottoman era houses have undergone changes and modifications. We can follow the development of the houses and determine a few types of floor plans. Some of them correspond to the earlier development of the area due to their lack of space and the modest development of their interiors. The houses with wider floor plans we conclude were probably first built in the later centuries of Ottoman rule, when the tobacco industry was in full bloom. This industry saw the emergence of a prosperous urban community; the rich families were able to build bigger and more spacious houses on larger properties instead of the small houses and lots that existed in the upper walled town. The specifics of the terrain and the location of the settlement had a direct impact on the typology of the houses. They became a mixture of the Ottoman era house type and traditional positioning of the house on the property according to the terrain. The richness of the architectural elements that can be seen in this location are of exceptional importance since they show the ways in which the builders in those times were solving problems in order to design and build houses that would provide not just the basic needs for shelter but also spaciousness, view, and light.156 In general, we can say that, of the houses built inside the walled part of the peninsula that are preserved, most have kept their “provincial” characteristics (Figure 2.38).

Figure 2.38 House on Mehmed Ali Street, No. 15. Source: V. Ivkovska, 2017.

94

History and urban development of Kavala

However, the morphology of the terrain was again an important factor and led to a different type of house and property. Because the walled part of the peninsula was densely populated, the residential plots were very small, sometimes narrow, and also positioned on the sloped terrain in such a way that it made it difficult to have wider or at least clearer forms of dwellings. This was not the case with the houses built by the middle and the end of the nineteenth century when the tobacco industry had just started to flourish in Kavala. At that time, foreign traders settling in the town and building their houses brought Western influences with them. However, these houses were not built in the old district of the peninsula since it was already overcrowded. The parcels of the houses in the enwalled Ottoman Kavala remained untouched and the houses kept their original floor plans.157 In these houses the central hall plan did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century. Several houses with an inner hall were built but their entrances were from the upper floor, which was due to the topographic specifics of the plots. This specificity was not based on Ottoman influences or characteristics, but on function. In Kavala, all Ottoman era house elements are visible today; the organic structure was retained with interventions made in later centuries, following the needs of new lifestyles and the general development of the town.158 These lands, and specifically Kavala, were first settled predominantly by Christians. Further, Christians were in charge of the construction works in the empire, and most of the guilds or so-called tayfas of great master builders were well established during the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century.159 It is logical, therefore, to conclude that it was probably Christians who most strongly impacted the development of this “Ottoman” house and its appearance. The houses located in the second walled portion of Kavala, the middle-walled town, had two and rarely three floors, all facing towards the sea whether they were located on the east or the west side of the area. Few of these houses had gardens due to the density of the settlement. They all had wider ground floors than those in the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood, and first floors all facing the sea. The steepness of this second walled town was less, so the houses, in pursuit of sunlight and view, did not have to be built as high as those in the aforementioned neighborhood. Due to the consolidation of the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was no need to defend the North Aegean Sea, so the town could freely expand over the whole area of the peninsula, slowly occupying all the empty plots that were not previously inhabited. In this phase we observe enlargement in dwellings due to the growth of the population from the developing tobacco industry.

Kavala’s development extra muros: the era of the tobacco industry (between the early nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were marked by the consolidation of tobacco production and trade. According to the traveler Francois Pouqueville

History and urban development of Kavala 95 in his book Journey in Greece, two French traders cultivated the first tobacco plants in Thessaloniki and introduced tobacco to the Aegean in the sixteenth century during the reign of Henry III (1573–1589).160 From the gathered information, it is likely that tobacco use was introduced into the Ottoman Empire in 1601 by British merchant ships carrying goods into Istanbul.161 Around 1687 a decree was issued legalizing tobacco use, and the expansion of cultivation, the development of production, and marketing of tobacco took off. At that time Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Turks controlled the production of tobacco.162 The town of Kavala in the late nineteenth century became one of the most important tobacco centers in the Balkans, with merchants arriving from both Ottoman lands and Western empires, especially Austro-Hungary. As a result of this, many tobacco warehouses were built outside the town walls. The construction of these warehouses significantly reshaped the town, shifted its center, and changed its character and its borders. The architecture of those warehouses shaped the identity not only of the town but of the society as well.163 These structures in a way eased the borders between the city and the production facilities, reshaping the lives of the tobacco workers.164 The town’s harbor had already been seeing some activity for decades, since the time when Kavala had broken away from the administrative district of Drama and joined that of Thessaloniki due to the activity of the foreign merchant companies. The outlook of Kavala had changed significantly by the middle of nineteenth century.165 The consolidation of tobacco production and trade increased the need for a bigger work force in the town, summoning Greeks and other Christians to Kavala from other parts of the region. The peninsula slowly became overpopulated and expansion of the town beyond its walls was inevitable. The Muslim residents lived in the walled town and were landowners, collecting and living off the rents. The rest of the population was suffocating inside the walls. Because of this, there were constant pleas to the authorities for permission to expand the town outside of the fortifications (extra muros).166 The beginning of the nineteenth century was marked by increased tobacco production as well as by the Tanzimat reforms that were widely visible in Kavala. Tobacco’s special requirements for growth, processing, and transport transformed and reshaped the town’s physiognomy. The construction of the tobacco depots drastically changed the town’s urban landscape. The nearby towns, especially Drama and Xanthi, were also affected by the growth of the tobacco industry and underwent similar transformations.167 The typical two-story stone and timber tobacco warehouses or kapnomagaza were important city landmarks. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a considerable number of tobacco warehouses were built in Kavala by merchants from the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires for both tobacco storage and processing. These factory buildings took into account the actual work process, arrangements for shipping and receiving, and requirements for natural light (workrooms) or complete darkness (tobacco storage areas). The architectural plans revealed the everyday work habits, the gender-based division of labor, and even the hierarchical power structures that linked the tobacco merchants to the tobacco workers.168

96

History and urban development of Kavala

Muslim, Armenian, Jewish, and Greek merchants, members of the diverse communities that coexisted in the Ottoman Empire, were the first to trade with tobacco.169 The workforce employed in the tobacco processing factories came from diverse nationalities and the charter of the Tobacco Workers International Union based in Kavala stated there was no discrimination. The well-known Italian Allatini family from Thessaloniki was the first big company to settle in Kavala in the middle of the nineteenth century; later renamed the Commercial Company of Salonica Ltd (Figure 2.39), its headquarters eventually relocated to London.170 The foreign merchants who were arriving in town needed land to build their tobacco warehouses by the coast on the sandy shorelines by the port. However, since this land was part of the late Mehmed Ali Pasha’s endowment, the purchasing of the land was not an easy process. From the Valı of Selanik request was made to the manager of the Mehmed Ali Pasha’s foundation about sale of the land outside the town walls in the Kumluk area. Request was made for purchasing 1000 meters of empty space at the point where the graveyards were ending. 120,000 kurush were asked from Kavala for the purchase of 30,000 meters of land. Due to the expansion of trade the area for sale has been enlarged because of the passage of the boats to Kavala’s port and it has been reported by the Greek Patriarch that it would be useful to sell the vacant land outside in pieces. The officials from Selanik requested a drawn map of the area to be sent with a letter explaining all these points. In response, it was said that some of these places

Figure 2.39 The tobacco depots of the Commercial Company of Salonica Ltd. Source: Tobacco Museum of Kavala/photo archive.

History and urban development of Kavala 97 were private properties and the empty ones were bought on auction at 125,000 kurush, including the public land, and that the map could not be prepared. Therefore, since the requested points were not fulfilled, an official was sent to Kavala in order to sell these places as required, and to prepare a map, if possible, and to investigate the real situation. Outside the wanted land for this purchase and 1000 arshins outside the town walls there’s 30,000 meters of sandy seashore and a rocky and stony area. However, since the area is close to the tomb of the late Mehmet Ali Pasha’s ancestors and a public area, if it is to be sold it would be no less than 150,000 kurush. As it is understood, since those interested in purchasing these lands were foreign merchants, it seemed like they were giving up on the purchase.171 Later the issue of the Kumluk area was resolved and foreign merchants started building their tobacco warehouses by the seashore. The Abbott Brothers moved from Thessaloniki to Kavala in 1858 and in 1884 the French Monopoly of Regie, the Governments monopoly,172 followed and thereafter the only cigarettes that were supposed to be smoked in Turkey were Regies.173 Cigarettes! The only cigarettes you are supposed to smoke in Turkey are Regie, the Government monopoly. But nobody in Kavala ever smokes Regie cigarettes. Every cigarette in Kavala is contraband and is good. The best tobacco in the world is grown on the plains at the back of Kavala. Egypt, though it sends us cigarettes, does not grow an ounce of tobacco. It imports the best from Kavala. In 1905 about one thousand tons were exported from this little port, and the value was about one million pounds sterling. The Government takes a clear ten per cent, royalty. Only the dust and scrapings go to the making of Regie cigarettes. A tremendous business is done in smuggling. The humor of the situation is that most of the Kavala officials are steeped to the eyes in smuggling. Ostensibly they do their best to check it, but manage to secure a considerable profit by failing. Captain Hamilton is hard on smugglers and officials. There is death for one and dismissal for the other. All round the hills are gendarmerie posts to watch for smugglers. An official got Captain Hamilton to change a post from a place where he was assured no smugglers ever came. He did so. But he caused a watch to be set. A great bale of tobacco seized was addressed to the very official who had got the soldiers removed. The former came from Smyrna eight years ago. His salary was 13 a month. He has now retired, having saved 40,000 out of his salary.174 The Austro-Hungarian Oriental Tobacco Trading Company Ltd (M.L. Herzog et Cie) based in Budapest settled in Kavala in 1890 (Figure 2.40, Figure 2.41). In the same period, another company, with English interests this time and headquarters based in London, the N. Mayer et Cie Ltd, also opened a branch in the city. In 1901, the American Tobacco Company (ATC) moved into Kavala together with Alston, Gary, M. Melachrino, as well as the Jewish Schinasi Bros which had

98

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.40 The first offices of M.L. Herzog et Cie, built after 1891. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2015.

Figure 2.41 M.L. Herzog et Cie office (1899), today Kavala’s Town Hall. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2015.

History and urban development of Kavala 99 its headquarters in New York. In more or less the same period, the Cairo tobacco industries of A. Chelmis, K. Doulgaridis, N. Tsinaklis, M. Melachroinos, Demetrios, and the Armenian O. Matossian founded some important tobacco trade houses in Kavala. Actually, in 1910, the great companies (Commercial, Herzog, and ATC) were employing 6000 workers in their various warehouses.175 The administration offices were located in smaller buildings – privately owned or rented – usually attached to the warehouses. The offices of larger tobacco companies would also house the residence of the company’s local representative, and in the case of foreign companies, they would serve as the seat of the respective vice-consulate.176 The tobacco industry brought in the money, which directly influenced the growth of Kavala and its neighbors Xanthi and Drama in commercial sectors as well as residential. The first tobacco factories were built right on the city’s coastline to facilitate the transportation of processed tobacco. Those that were constructed later occupied a sizable semicircular area behind the front line that also included all the important economic functions of the new town: the Ottoman Empire Bank, the Ottoman Agricultural Bank, the Austrian and French shipping agencies, the foreign consulates, and the Austrian and French post offices.177 The yearly shipment of the huge amounts of tobacco that were produced in Kavala by the end of the nineteenth century was done by two major companies that operated in the city, the Austrian Herzog et Cie and the Italian Fratelli Allatini. According to a report of the chief financier of Macedonia at the end of Ottoman rule over Kavala, more than 60 tobacco trading companies operated in the town and were exporting four times more tobacco than the biggest town in the region, Thessaloniki.178 The first tobacco warehouses were built by the middle of the nineteenth century right on Kavala’s coastline (Figure 2.42).

Figure 2.42 The warehouses by the coastline. Source: Tobacco Museum of Kavala/photo archive.

100

History and urban development of Kavala

These buildings belonged to the Fratelli Allatini Company, an Italian-Jewish family that already owned a large flourmill in Thessaloniki. In 1860, the Kinney brothers built the second big warehouse in the city. Among the most representative examples of this early industrial design were also the warehouses of the Austro-Hungarian company Herzog et Cie that became the main tobacco supplier of the sultan in Istanbul.179 From the mid-nineteenth century, as the town of Kavala developed into the most important export center for tobacco in Greece, the urban environment transformed to meet the needs of the tobacco trade. The first warehouses were built near the sea to facilitate loading from the port and gradually conquered all the coastal space. Later, the construction of warehouses continued within the city. Sometimes they occupied whole blocks, dominating the town’s urban fabric with their bulk. The industry brought many foreign influences in the form of the foreign merchants who were establishing their companies in the town and building their homes there. In this way, Western architectural influences were imported and mixed with the local Levantine culture, defining a new and peculiar style not visible in Europe or other Islamic cities outside the Mediterranean world.180 Kavala’s outlook changed drastically in the middle of the nineteenth century. Its natural harbor and important geopolitical location attracted foreign companies to establish commercial offices in the town. The old town could not support the enormous influx of foreign commerce and diplomatic representatives. During this time of prosperity, Orthodox Christian families from various parts of Greece and the Southern Balkans started arriving in town, overpopulating and suffocating in the small walled settlement on the peninsula. Turkish property owners recognized the opportunity to collect rent and the walled section of the town was overcrowded and unrelieved until 1864, when the Greek community obtained permission to move outside the town walls and built their new, Christian neighborhood of Agios Ioannis in the flat lands behind the neck of the peninsula. In this year, the bishop of İskeçe (today’s Xanthi) established a codex (Register) to keep all records related to the Greek community in the town, including records involving infrastructure and urban development.181 The community built the neighborhood church of Agios Ioannis in 1867 (Figure 2.43). After the town began developing beyond the walls, different structures were needed. In 1875 a block of quarantine apartments was proposed. This new construction proposal was taken in different ways. Store owners in the vicinity of the proposed quarantine block opposed construction, saying that their incomes would decrease. However, the project was seen as very beneficial to the state treasury.182 In 1886 a request for construction of a church in the Karaorman village was submitted to officials. Since there was no church or cemetery in the village, which was one hour from Kavala, Greek and Orthodox residents of the village (which held more than a hundred people) were forced to go to Kavala for worship or burial of their dead. Because of this, the inhabitants of Karaorman village wanted their own church, with dimensions 40 meters long, 20 meters wide and 10 meters high (Figure 2.44). They also asked that a sufficient portion

History and urban development of Kavala 101

Figure 2.43 Photo of Kavala from 1903 with the Agios Ioannis church in construction and the neighborhood around it, from the book of George Frederick Abbot A Tale of a Tour in Macedonia, end of the nineteenth century. Source: photo from American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Gennadius Library.

of the site be allocated to the church cemetery.183 They named the church Agios Athanasios. The shores by the port were always covered with sand and not used for construction, except for the mausoleums (türbe) of Mehmed Ali’s father (Figure 2.45) and mother (Figure 2.46). The mausoleum of Mehmed Ali’s father had a rectangular floor plan surmounted with a lead-covered dome. It was a closed structure built of stone masonry with arched portals on each side. Over the entrance portal was a decorated canopy of lead. It was surrounded by a small garden enclosed with a fence. The mausoleum of Mehmed Ali’s mother was an octagonal open structure, with eight massive pillars supporting the semicircular dome covered with lead. A surrounding small garden was also enclosed with a fence. The remaining land was in the possession of Mehmed Ali’s family and there were attempts to sell the plots. In the nineteenth century Mehmed Ali wanted to build a mosque near the tomb of his father.184 At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, Kavala’s urban appearance changes significantly. Several new neighborhoods emerge in the town, all outside the walls. The “fashion” of building new neighborhoods outside town walls was not new in the nineteenth century, especially in southern Macedonia. In 1887, in the flat lands by the seashore outside Thessaloniki’s town walls, a new neighborhood was fashioned carrying the name of the Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Hamidiye.185 Such neighborhoods carrying the name

102

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.44 Plan of Agios Athanasios church in the village of Karaorman from 1886. Source: registered in BOA under İ.DH 1003/79213.

History and urban development of Kavala 103

Figure 2.45 General view of the türbe (mausoleum) of Ibrahim Ağa, father of Mehmed Ali Pasha, c.1930. Source: BAU OTAK.

Figure 2.46 Türbe (mausoleum) of Zeyneb Hatun, mother of Mehmed Ali Pasha, c.1930 (destroyed c.1967–1970). Source: BAU OTAK.

104

History and urban development of Kavala

Hamidiye started emerging especially in the lands of Ottoman Rumelia (Thessaloniki, Skopje, Kavala). These Hamidiye neighborhoods were all influenced by the new fashion of “Westernization”, where the urban layouts were presented with wider streets and larger land parcels that were no longer squeezed and condensed as they had been in most of the previous era’s urban plans. In 1896, on the slope of the hill close to the old shipyard on the northeast side behind the aqueduct, a new Muslim neighborhood emerged, also named Hamidiye. Officials from the Land Registry and an engineer stated that there was enough land for the construction of 120 houses and one mescid in the area; 50 of the houses had already been constructed and were inhabited.186 The Hamidiye neighborhood (Figure 2.47) and the mosque (Figure 2.48) were built in 1896. In 1902 permission was issued for construction of a primary school (mekteb) in this neighborhood187 and 11 shops and two acres of land were allocated to cover the expenses of the school. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century the Hamidiye Mosque was in very bad condition, with damage to the walls and foundations; the minaret had also been destroyed. In 1908, the municipal engineer Fahri Efendi prepared a plan for the repairs of the mosque (Figure 2.49); 19,210 kurush were estimated for the repairs and 11,060.5 kurush were estimated for construction of a new minaret. The expenses were ultimately paid by the private treasury of the Ottoman sultan (Hazine-i Hassa),188 and not by the Tassos vakıf.

Figure 2.47 View of Hamidiye neighborhood and mosque behind the aqueduct (after restoration). Source: Historical Archive of Municipal Museum of Kavala.

History and urban development of Kavala 105

Figure 2.48 Hamidiye Mosque in a postcard from the beginning of the twentieth century (after restoration). Source: courtesy of Professor Konstantinos Lalenis.

A second Muslim neighborhood, also outside the town walls and above the Hamidiye neighborhood, was built later, after official request was made to the authorities in 1901. The neighborhood was named Selimiye mahalle after Şehzade Selim Efendi. The authorities granted permission for construction of the Selimiye Mosque and 50 houses presented in an urban plan in 1901 (Figure 2.50).189 In other archival documents preserved in BOA there are mentions of two Coptic neighborhoods190 built in 1899 outside the town walls. One was Christian and named Cedid­ Kıbti­ mahallesi; located west of the aqueduct, it was part of the Yeni mahalle, the New neighborhood.191 Archival documents mention that this neighborhood had 749 inhabitants and 180 households.192

106

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.49 The plan for the Hamidiye Mosque from July 18, 1908. Source: BOA TFR.I.SL 187/18663.

History and urban development of Kavala 107

Figure 2.50 Re-elaboration of the urban plan from 1901 for the new Selimiye neighborhood (main Ottoman toponyms indicated and translated into English by V. Ivkovska). Source: registered in BOA under ŞD 2044.

The New neighborhood, which was rebuilt for immigrants outside Kavala’s walls, expanded day by day, reached 1249 male and female population. The number of houses is 436. Coptic migrants reached 749 people in 180 households and live in the Yeni mahalle. Due to difficulties they encounter, they have requested for them to be in a separate neighborhood for a long time. These requests were discussed in the parliament. After state evaluation, it has been taken into consideration that the villages and neighborhoods should be separated as 50 households. As the neighborhood and the houses of Kibtiler are not adjacent to each other and the population is recorded separately, there is no objection from the population administration when leaving the neighborhood. This demand is also seen in terms of administrative improvement. Therefore, it is named as Cedid­Kıbti­mahallesi.

108

History and urban development of Kavala

One month later a small neighborhood named Small neighborhood (Küçuk mahalle)193 also emerged within the borders of the Yeni mahalle.194 In town of Kavala, outside the town walls the re-emergence of the one hundred-dwellings in the Coptic mahalle, new neighborhood emerged from the Yeni mahalle named Küçük mahalle. The other Coptic neighborhood was settled by Muslims and in 1902 was officially named Dere mahalle.195 Though the neighborhood was increasing in size, it retained the name Dere (creek) because it was positioned near a creek.196 Today very little is left in these neighborhoods from the last phases of Ottoman era urban organization. Even the housing program had completely changed, leaving us little material to work with. The neighborhood Varoş, located inside the town walls, was settled by Christians in 1902 but with more than 700–800 houses, the neighborhood started spreading beyond the walls. For this reason, it could not be governed by an official elected neighborhood representative (muhtar),197 so it was divided into four areas named Çaylar, Merkez, Yukarı, and­ Aşağı­ Varoş.198 This expansion and creation of subdivisions implies that the demographic profile of the walled town was changing slowly in favor of the Christian population. As the birthplace of Mehmed Ali, Kavala received many privileges until the middle of the nineteenth century. The Greek population also enjoyed these privileges. Almost every petition that Kavala sent to the local Turkish authorities or the Porte in Constantinople was granted, even if there was sometimes a delay. It is worth remembering that the inhabitants of Kavala were granted permission to build the third Orthodox Christian Church in the so-called Çaylar area positioned in the northwest outskirts of the flatlands of the town, just above the Agios Ioannis neighborhood established in 1864. In 1903 a new Christian church, designed by the Greek architect Periklis D. Fotiadis199 (Figure 2.51, Figure 2.52) and named Agios Pavlos, was commissioned and built in this area and the neighborhood that developed around the church took the same name.200 The Greek Patriarch requested permission to erect the Aya Pavlo church, with a metropolitan, and papa’s chambers, with two bell towers, in the Çaylar area. The Ottoman citizen Andon-i Panayot, a merchant and the owner of three houses worth 58.5 kurush per year in rent, asked to build the church. The resulting structure is 26.5 meters high and 22 meters wide, with two bell towers each 34 meters high and an almost L shaped metropolitan building with one wing 18 meters long and 8 meters wide and 13 meters high and the other wing 20 meters long and 4 meters wide. It is understood that there are no obstructions for the construction of the two priest chambers. Although Kavala is not a metropolitan center still a need of a metropolitan building in Kavala is considered as a valuable issue. The construction of the metropolitan would not be a problem, even if the Sultan’s permission was granted only for the construction of this church. Therefore, there is no obstacle to the construction of the metropolitan.201

History and urban development of Kavala 109

Figure 2.51 Plan for the new Agios Pavlos church in the Çaylar area of Kavala from 1903. Source: English translation re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska on the original document registered in BOA under İ. AZN 60/38.

Figure 2.52 The church of Agios Pavlos today. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2016.

110

History and urban development of Kavala

The Agios Pavlos church was a three-nave basilica with a dome supported by four octagonal pillars. The entrance was through a portico containing three arches, with three arched windows above. The two bell towers were positioned to the left and right of the entrance. The church façade was made with brick rows interpolated in the stone masonry, expressing the new “Greek Byzantine style”.202 The church’s external appearance resembles the church of Agia Kyriaki in Istanbul that Fotiadis designed and built later from 1893 to 1895.203 The Jewish population was more than present in Kavala. Jews once resided in the Yeni mahalle. In 1906 one of the Jewish Community’s elders in Kavala, a certain Mishon Efendi, was granted permission to build a new Jewish school on the site of the previous Jewish boys’ and girls’ schools, which were separate. The new school was 16 meters wide, 12.6 meters high, 15.5 meters long and covered three floors.204 The last years of the Ottoman rule of Kavala were marked by two other urban interventions. As already mentioned, the area nearest the port right outside the walls of the Ibrahim Pasha neighborhood was the so-called Kumluk, a sand area vacant of any structures except for the tomb of Mehmed Pasha’s father and cemeteries around it205 (Figure 2.53). Also, by the coast and inland there were tobacco depots. The archival document in BOA registered under ML.EEM 15/7 from August 24, 1870 records that Mehmed Ali Pasha intended to build a mosque in this area, but the project was never realized.

Figure 2.53 The Kumluk area with the türbe and the new land plot allocated for a Christian Girls’ School from 1893, signed by the Vice Consul of France. Source: re-elaborated with English translation by V. Ivkovska over the original document registered in BOA under ŞD 2020 14 1 002.

History and urban development of Kavala 111 In 1909, at the beginning of Çaylar area, the so-called Çayırbaşı by the coast, a project (Figure 2.54) was commissioned by the Catholic priests for construction of a church (Figure 2.55) and a school for the Catholic community.206 Outside the Kavala town walls, the construction of a church for the Catholic community on the state land in the place named Çaylarbaşı was conveyed by the Salonika (Thessaloniki) French Consul. Upon the notification made by the Ministry of Justice about the church, it has been decided that it is appropriate for the State Council to grant the requested place on the basis of the discussion on the Council of State and it was not appropriate to start construction of the church without permission from the Sultan. Again, it is understood that the construction of the church could be objectionable at this time. Religious institutions such as these are seeking permission for permits to be made in accordance with the situation that will arise after a thorough investigation of the need and the way of constructing. After these conditions were fulfilled, the matter was rewritten by the Ministry of Justice and discussed here; It was reported by the governor that there would not be any drawbacks in the construction of the church. The legal requirements for the church land have been asked by the Land Registry Directorate (Tapu Kadastro­Müdürlüğü). It is stated that the land referred to is to be handed over to the head priest who takes the construction of the church with the property determined in the locality, and the annual taken fee shall be written on the paper to be given from the Land Registry Office. Due to the fact that the area is by the coast, it is necessary to ask whether there are any inconveniences to the military officials and the naval forces. The subject was answered by Maritime (Deniz); it is stated that there is no disadvantage because the mentioned land is far from the beach. In the answer given by the military institution, it is stated that there is no disadvantage in the construction of the church when it is located about 500 m west of the citadel and between the houses of the new settlement opening district.207 The area for this church was called Sör­ Dö­ Laşarine (Lazarine Sisters). An investigation was requested to select the plot where a school and monastery were to be built. According to the contents of all these documents, it is revealed that the last place taken for this church consists of 900 zira-­ı­cedid (new meters) and it is found that there is a distance of 200 meters to places where it might be a problem in the construction of the church and that the church is 25 meters in length, 10 meters in wide and 13 meters in height. Again, the cost of the construction of the church was met by the head priest, and it was revealed that the entire population consists of 18 households and 70 inhabitants who live there are Catholic, and that there were no inconveniences in the construction of the church, in the neighborhood, related to the military and naval forces. It has been determined that the annual fee is 200 kurush. It is

Source: registered in BOA under İ.AZN. 9/5.

Figure 2.54 Re-elaboration with English translation of the urban plan of the existing area made by the Kavala Municipality’s engineer, a certain Fahri, as the site for construction of the Catholic Church and a school in the Çayırbaşı area from 1894.

112 History and urban development of Kavala

Source: registered in BOA, under ŞD 2020 14 2.

Figure 2.55 The façade project for the Catholic Church made in 1896.

History and urban development of Kavala 113

114

History and urban development of Kavala decided that the foreigners should inform about construction of such churches and similar institutions in the Ottoman territories, and only a special permit and not an agreement granted by the Sultan, the necessary registration shall be made and the information shall be provided to the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate of Land Registry (Adalet­Bakanlığı and Tapu­Müdürlüğüne). A map of the region is presented.208

As compensation for these projects, the plot’s owners, a certain Monsieur Petro Bulgaridi and Kavala’s French Catholic head priest Monsieur Etyen Jölağa,209 were given 521 square meters of land from the Varoş neighborhood and 4500 kurush. In the architectural features of these two religious buildings for the Christian communities of Kavala we can see different ideological expressions. The Orthodox structure demonstrates continuity with the Byzantine tradition, seen in design elements like the central dome and the basilica configuration of the central space. The Catholic structure recalls Gothic architecture in its pointed arch side windows and a slender pointed belfry; in this it follows the new fashion of the Gothic revival, very common in many Catholic countries.210 The new settlements in Kavala mark the moment the Greeks broke from traditional vernacular architecture to employ the neoclassical, Western-influenced architecture. The new economic conditions accelerated the growth of the town and soon it became the second largest center after Thessaloniki in Northern Greece. These conditions brought about the development of an urban middleclass lifestyle,211 as the Western lifestyle imported by foreign merchants who settled in Kavala was soon adopted not only by the town’s Greeks but also by its Turkish population. The Greek population in Kavala also had close contact with independent southern Greece, which emphasized the bourgeois way of life seen in Athens that resulted from the influence of Western prototypes. Under the influence of the Western architecture, wealthy Turkish merchants erected buildings outside the town walls, even though – as expressed before and confirmed by scholars such as Cerasi – the architectural environment was still affected by the local multicultural milieu.212 The dominant architectural style was an eclectic one with a strong use of neoclassical elements and presented great examples of German Baroque, German Romanticism (Figure 2.56) or French Beaux-Arts Rococo.213 The architectural creations demonstrated new architectural and decorative solutions, with original inspirations and influences.214 The first houses of modern Kavala were built by Greeks in their newly established district of Agios Ioannis. These houses had traditional folk architecture with slight neoclassical influences (Figure 2.57). This “folk architecture” was abandoned at the beginning of the twentieth century and replaced with neoclassical architectural works with strong eclectic leanings.215 All the last urban interventions were located outside the town walls in the sloping areas behind the neck of the peninsula. The Muslims settled on the east side of this extension with the Copts nearby; the Christians settled on the west side of the aqueduct which served as a physical border between these two zones.

History and urban development of Kavala 115

Figure 2.56 Baron Adolf Wix House built in 1899. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2014.

116

History and urban development of Kavala

Figure 2.57 Demetrius Tokkos’s property built in 1879. Source: V. Ivkovska, photo 2015.

Source: graphics re-elaborated by V. Ivkovska from Kavala Municipality map 1923.

Figure 2.58 Kavala’s intra- and extramural neighborhoods by the end of its rule under the Ottomans.

History and urban development of Kavala 117

118

History and urban development of Kavala

The Jews somehow stayed located between the Yeni mahalle, the Agios Pavlos neighborhood, and close to the market area in the Varoş neighborhood. All these urban interventions completely changed the urban profile of Kavala in the last decades of its Ottoman rule and set the ground for its future development under new rulers this time outside the old enwalled town (Figure 2.58).

Notes 1 Isaac, B.H. (1986), The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest (Vol. 10), Leiden: E.J. Brill. 2 Papazoglou, G.K. (2008), Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama – time and space, in Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedonia, Komotini: Anglohellenic Pelti Publications S.A. (from here on Papazoglou et al.). 3 Karagiannakidis, N.E., & Lycurinos, K. (2009), Neapolis – Christoypolis – Kavala: History of Kavala from 4500 bc to our days, Δήμου Καβάλας [Municipality of Kavala]. 4 Ilieva, P. (2013), Archaic wheel made ceramics from the cave of Maroneia and Kremasto (Asar Tepe), Aegean Thrace, Annual of the British School at Athens, pp. 108, 137–185. 5 For detailed dating and analysis of the findings of the walls of the peninsula see Dakari, K. (2008), Historical Phases, in The coastal wall of Kavala (Το­ Παραλιο­ τειχος­τνς­Καβαλας), Hellenic Ministry of culture, 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region, Kavala, pp. 13–25. 6 Papazoglou, G.K. (2008), Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama, pp. 7, 8. 7 Lazaridi, I.D. (1969), Neapolis Christopoli Kavala: Museum Guide Kavala, Athens (Ι.­Λαζαριδη.­Νεαπολισ­Χριστουπολισ­Καβαλα­Οδηγοσ­Μουσειου­Καβαλασ), p. 21. 8 Papazoglou, G.K. (2008), Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama, p. 8. 9 Herzog, R., & Klaffenbach, G. (1952). Asylieurkunden aus Kos. Abhandl. Ak. Wiss. Berlin, KI. Spr, 1952(1), p. 90. See also www.ancient.eu/Philippi/. 10 Papazoglou, N.G., & Papazoglou, A.G. (2008), Paths of remembrance in the Byzantine era: The written testimonies, in Papazoglou et al., p. 101. 11 Kypsela was an ancient Greek city in Thrace, located in the region between the river Nestos and the river Hebros. See: Mogens, H.H. (2004), Inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 170, 871–884, 1386. 12 Papazoglou, G.K. (2008), Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama, p. 8. 13 Papazoglou, N.G., & Papazoglou, A.G. (2008), Paths of remembrance, in Papazoglou et al, pp. 101, 102. 14 Lazaridi, I.D. (1969), Neapolis Christopoli Kavala, p. 26; Papazoglou, G.K. (2008), Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama, p. 102. 15 Lazaridi, I.D. (1969), Neapolis Christopoli Kavala, p. 27. 16 Ibid., p. 26. 17 Kiel, M. (1996), Ottoman building activity along Via Egnatia: The cases of Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik, in E.A. Zachariadou (Ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule­(1380–1699):­Halcyon­days­in­Crete­II:­A­symposium­held­in­Rethymnon­9–11­ January 1994, Crete University Press, p. 149. 18 Bakirtzis, A., Karabassis, G. (2008), Maintenance – Classification of the coastal walls, in The coastal wall of Kavala (Το­ Παραλιο­ τειχος­ τνς­ Καβαλας), Hellenic Ministry of culture, 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region, Kavala, pp. 30–32.

History and urban development of Kavala 119 19 Bakirtzis, C., & Koester, H. (Eds.) (2009), Philippi at the time of Paul and after his death, Wipf and Stock Publishers, p. 3. 20 Seen at http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Kavala.html, last accessed December 15, 2015. 21 Papazoglou, N.G, & Papazoglou, A.G. (2008), Paths of remembrance, in Papazoglou et al., p. 104. 22 Byzantine military–civilian province (theme) located in modern Greek Macedonia, with the city of Serres as its capital. 23 Papazoglou, N.G., & Papazoglou, A.G., Paths of Remembrance, p. 104. 24 Lazaridi, I.D. (1969), Neapolis Christopoli Kavala, p. 31. 25 Setton, K.M. (Series Ed.) (1914), A­history­of­the­Crusades:­the­fourteenth­and­fifteenth centuries (H.W. Hazard, Ed.) (Vol. 3), University of Pennsylvania Press. 26 Bakirtzis, I. (2008), Serb and Latin rule in Eastern Macedonia, in Papazoglou et al. (2008), p. 159. 27 Schreiner, P. (1977), Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: 2. Teil, Historischer Kommentar, p. 343. 28 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The conquest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece, Bahçeşehir University Publications, p. 16. 29 Ibid., p. 16. 30 Smyrlis, K. (2008), The first Ottoman occupation of Macedonia (c.1383–c.1403): Some remarks on land ownership, property transactions and justice, in A. Beihammer, M. Parani, & C. Schabel (Eds.), Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000–1500 (pp. 325–348), Boston: Brill, p. 327. 31 Dennis, G.T. (1967), The Byzantine–Turkish treaty of 1403, pp. 72, 88. 32 See Öztürk, N.A., The­origins­of­the­Ottoman­state­through­the­eyes­of­Aşikpaşazade, Master Thesis submitted to Bahçeşehir University Graduate School of Social Sciences Ottoman History Graduate Program, 2014, Istanbul. 33 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The conquest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece, Bahçeşehir University Publications. 34 Speros Vryonis: Isidore Glabas and the Turkish Devshirme, Speculum, 31(3) (July 1956), 433–443. See: p. 440. 35 Öztürk, N. (2013), Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi (1285–1502). 36 Schreiner, P. (1977), Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: 2. Teil, Historischer Kommentar, p. 343. 37 Bakirtzis, I. (2008), Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia: Hellenism’s struggle for survival, in Papazoglou et al. (2008), p. 184. 38 Akın, N. (2001), Balkanlarda­Osmanlı­dönemi­konutları. İstanbul: Literatür, p. 70. 39 Chalkokondyles, Laonikos: A translation and commentary of the “Demonstrations of Histories” (Books I–III), edited by Nikolaos Nicoloudis, Athens: Historical Publications St. D. Basilopoulos, 1996, pp. 231–233. 40 The vilayet was a major administrative district or province with its own governor, established after the state reforms of the Tanzimat era in the nineteenth century but based on the previous eliyet system. For further information about the definitions and the administrative provincial subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, see: Dàvid, G., Administration, provincial, in G. Agoston & B. Masters (2009), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, New York: Infobase Publishing, pp. 13–17. 41 See: http://tarihvemedeniyet.org/2009/10/selanik-vilayeti.html, last accessed November 2017. 42 Ormenio was an important town during the Byzantine period, when it was called Tzermianou. It is the old Tsirmen, where on September 26, 1371, the Battle of Evros took place between the united Christian nations (Serbians, Bulgarians, and Greeks) and the Ottoman army. The victory of the Turks sealed the fate of the Byzantine

120 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56

57

58

History and urban development of Kavala Empire and it has been characterized by historians as the most important Ottoman victory before 1453. Bakirtzis, I. (2008), Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia: Hellenism’s struggle for survival, in Papazoglou et al. (2008), p. 184. Lowry, H.W. (2010a), Piri Reis Revisited: The Kitab-I Bahriyye as a source for Ottoman history: The Aegean port of Kavala & the Island of Limnos (İlimli) as described by Piri Reis, Osmanlı­Araştırmaları, 35, p. 10. Ageloudi S. (2008), Ottoman-Venetian wars – Ottoman censuses, travelers and piracy, in Papazoglou et al., p. 165. TDV (1993), Vol. 8, pp. 214–215. Schreiner, P. (1977), Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: 2. Teil, Historischer Kommentar, p. 343. Ageloudi S. (2008), Ottoman-Venetian wars – Ottoman censuses, travelers and piracy, in Papazoglou et al., p. 165. Bakirtzis I. (2008), Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia: Hellenism’s struggle for survival, in Papazoglou et al., p. 184. Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 228. The tax register gives the number of the households as following: 13 Muslim households (Müslümânan) and 75 households hanes (gebr, i.e., unbelievers = Orthodox Christians), 8 bachelors (mücerred) and 8 households run by widows (bive). See Appendix, TT.d 7. This document is registered in BOA under TT.d 7, s. 88–89. For Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. The Italian word cavallo or cavalla (horse in English) is used very often in the text and literature until recent times. Fraser, F.J. (1906), Pictures from the Balkans, London and New York: Cassell and Co., pp. 172, 173. Belon, P. (1555), Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays estranges. Paris, pp. 129, 130. Jesuit (1827), Lettera del Padre Tarillon al Signor Di Pont Chartrain, 4 Marzo 1714, in Missione­del­Levante,­Grecia,­Crimea,­Scelta­di­lettere­edificanti­scritte­dalle­missioni­ straniere­ preceduta­ da­ quadri­ geografici­ storici,­ politici,­ religiosi­ e­ letterari­ de’ paesi di missione accresciuta di un ragguaglio storico sulle missioni straniere di nuove­ lettere­ edificanti­ ed­ altri­ scelri­ pezzi, traduzione dall’originale francese, Volume VII, Milano: Ranieri Fanfani, p. 91. Bakirtzis states that in a more recent reference, dating to 1519, Kavala remains uninhabited while the toponym continues to refer not to a city but an area (2008, Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia, in Papazoglou et al., 2008, p. 184). Leaving aside many of the hypotheses on the toponym’s etymology, all of which have been refuted, in 1533 the name had prevailed, according to the testimony of an eight-page leaflet found in the Markian Library. There are many historical maps referring to the town of Kavala and its surroundings, including sometimes the entire Northern Aegean Sea, the city of Thessaloniki, and even the Marmara Sea or the entire Greek peninsula. For the toponym Cavallo see all of the following maps, presented in a chronological order from the oldest, in different libraries and collections around the world. They are: Map of the Island of Tassos (from Piri Reis, Kitab-i Bahriye, 1521, Istanbul University Rare Books Library); Map of the North Aegean Sea (from Piri Reis, Kitab-i Bahriye, 1526, Istanbul University Rare Books Library); Gerardum Mercatorem, Macedonia Epirvs et Achaia cum priuilegio, 1589 (IDS Basel Bern Catalogue); Roux, Joseph, Carte De La Mer Mediterranee, 1764 (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection); Vandermaelen, Philippe, Greece. Europe 27, 1827 (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection); Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Turkey II. Northern Greece, 1829 (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection).

History and urban development of Kavala 121 59 Registered in BOA under TT.d 70, s. 3–4. For Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. 60 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 229. 61 See Kiel, M. (1996), Ottoman building activity along the Via Egnatia: The Cases of Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik, in The­Via­Egnatia­under­Ottoman­rule­(1380–1699). Page 150 is a slight misread of the original Ottoman tax register in which Kiel omits to read the ten Christian households run by widows, so the total number of households is not 83 but 93, which slightly elevates the overall percentage of the Christians against the 24 percent of Muslims in town. 62 Zachariadou, E.A. (1996), The­ Via­ Egnatia­ under­ Ottoman­ rule­ (1380–1699):­ Halcyon days in Crete II: A symposium held in Rethymnon 9–11 January 1994, Crete University Press, pp. 9–16. 63 Lowry, H.W. (2010a), Piri Reis Revisited, p. 15. 64 Khalīfah, Ḥ. (1812), Rumeli und Bosna, geographisch beschrieben. Kunst-und industrie-comptoir, p. 71. 65 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 232. 66 In Kiel, M. (1996), Ottoman building activity along the Via Egnatia: The cases of Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik, in The­Via­Egnatia­under­Ottoman­rule­(1380–1699), p. 151. 67 Ageloudi S. (2008), Ottoman-Venetian wars – Ottoman censuses, travelers and piracy, in Papazoglou et al., p. 165. 68 Kramers, J.H. (1927), Kawala, in A.J. Wensinck, P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W.P. Heinrichs (1927), Encyclopaedia of Islam (new ed., henceforth EI2), Leiden (1960–2004), sv Maryam, p. 829. 69 Kiel, M. (1992), Remarks on some Ottoman-Turkish aqueducts and water supply systems in the Balkans: Kavalla, Chalkis, Levkas and Ferai/Ferecik, in De turcicis aliisque rebus: Commentarii Henry Hofman dedicati, p. 108. 70 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 231. And see BOA registered under TT. d. 167. 71 The polemic on whether the aqueduct was built by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent or by the grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha was closed by Professor Lowry. See: Lowry, H. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The conquest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece, Chapter 6, pp. 236–238, footnotes 23–26, Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications. 72 Belon, P. (1555), Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays estranges, Paris, p. 131. 73 This information comes from a document registered in BOA under A.{DVNSMHM 7/147. For an Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. 74 See BOA A.{DVNS.MHM 39/634. For Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. 75 See A.{DVNS.MHM 39/634. For Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. There are no archival registers on any of Ibrahim Pasha’s Foundations. During this research only this one document was found that was related to a foundation of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, and it is that of the repairs of a fountain that was endowed by him. 76 Jesuit (1827), Lettera, in Missione del Levante, p. 91. 77 Dermentzoglou, D., Dadaki, S., Avgoloupis, I., and Katsifarakis, K.L. (2019), Technical study of the historical aqueduct of Kavala, Greece. Water History, 11(3–4), 233–252. 78 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 235. 79 Ivkovska, V. (2019), The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: the case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912). In A. Naser Eslami & M. Folin (Eds.), Multi-ethnic cities in the Mediterranean world: Port

122

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

90 91 92

93 94

95 96 97 98 99 100 101

History and urban development of Kavala cities, building sites, minorities. Papers presented at AISU International Conference (Genoa,­ 4–5­ June­ 2018), Milan–Turin: Pearson Italia Bruno Mondadori, pp. 113, EAN 9788867742592. For dating the Kavala walls, see: Bakirtzis. A., Dakari K., & Karabassis, G. (2008), The coastal wall of Kavala (Το­Παραλιο­τειχος­τνς­Καβαλας). One of the inns, that probably in the eighteenth century was owned by Mustafa Aga the old dizdar (captain), was located very near Ibrahim Pasha Mosque (see Appendix 10, AE.SAMD III 188/18240). Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 234. Yerasimos, S. (1991), Les­ voyageurs­ dans­ l’empire­ ottoman­ (XIVe–XVIe­ siècles), Ankara: Imprimerie de la société turque d’histoire. Lowry, H.W. (2010b), The “Soup Muslims” of the Ottoman Balkans: Was there a “Western” & “Eastern” Ottoman Empire?, Osmanlı­Araştırmaları, 36, p. 105. Belon, P. (1555), Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays estranges, Paris, p. 133. Ibid., pp. 129, 130. Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 238. See Kiel, M. (1996), Ottoman building activity along the Via Egnatia: The cases of Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik, in The­Via­Egnatia­under­Ottoman­rule­(1380–1699), p. 154; also, Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 232. Cavazza, G. (1887), Viaggio a Costantinopoli di sier Lorenzo Bernardo: per l’arresto del bailo sier Girolamo Lippomano Cav., 1591 aprile, in Monumenti storici, edited by the R. Deputazione Veneta sopra gli Studi di Storia Patria, Vol. 4, Part 1, Venezia: Miscellanea. See also Yerasimos, S. (1991), Les voyageurs dans l’empire ottoman (XIV–XVI siecles), Ankara: Imprimerie De La Societe Turque D’Historie, pp. 407–409. The Oriental Collections Department in the Bulgarian Archives in Sofia holds a document registering construction of a galley for Kavala under the orders of the Sultan; see Appendix, OOZ Fond no. 43/Arch.Un.4. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Kavala became a major port for the exchange of goods between Constantinople and the West. It is also important to mention that during these two centuries, seven wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Venice over maritime control in the Aegean occurred. These wars had a considerable impact on the port city of Kavala and the strait between it and the island of Tassos since it was always the target of pirate raids. Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 240.

Kahraman, A.S., (2011), Evliya Çelebi Günümüz Türkçesiyle. Evliya Çelebi Seya-

hatnamesi:­Gümülcine,­Kavala,­Selanik,­Tırhala,­Atina,­Mora,­Navarin,­Girit­Adası,­ Hanya,­ Kandiye,­ Elbasan,­ Ohri,­ Tekirdağı­ 8.­ Kitap­ 1.­ Cilt, Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Ivkovska, V. (2019), The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: The case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912), p. 116. See BOA registered under HAT 1446/19 from November 21, 1605 (Hicri: B.10.1014). For an Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. Pernot, H.O. (Ed.). (1925), Voyage en Turquie et en Grèce du RP Robert de Dreux, aumonier­ de­ l’ambassadeur­ de­ France­ (1665–1669), Société d’édition “Les belles lettres”. For the toponyms related to the area of Kavala and the Northern Aegean Sea, see the maps listed in endnote 58. Jesuit (1827), Lettera, in Missione del Levante, p. 89. Bakirtzis I. (2008), Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia, in Papazoglou et al., p. 189. Also known as Muhammad Ali Pasha (Arabic: ‫ )محمد علي باشا‬or Kavalalı Mehmet Ali Paşa (in Turkish).

History and urban development of Kavala 123 102 Fahmy, K. (2008), Mehmed Ali: From Ottoman governor to ruler of Egypt, Oxford: Oneworld Publications. 103 Fahmy, K. (1998), The era of Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, in The Cambridge History of Egypt (Vol. 2), Cambridge, pp. 139–179. 104 Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots: Mehmed Ali Pasa of Egypt’s links to the Macedonian town of Kavala: Architectural monuments, inscriptions & documents, Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, pp. 2–6. 105 Fahmy, K. (1998), The Era of Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha. 106 Fraser, F.J. (1906), Pictures from the Balkans, London and New York: Cassell and Co., p. 170. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid., p. 172. 109 Fraser states about Kavala that: “It is just the place for a Turk. It makes even an Infidel feel like a Turk”. See the full quote that follows. 110 Fraser, F.J. (1906), Pictures from the Balkans, pp. 168, 169. 111 Lowry, H.W. (2008), The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, p. 239. 112 Ivkovska, V. (2019), The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: The case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912), pp. 113–128. 113 Registered in BOA under AE.SMHD.I 85/5744 from April 12, 1735 (see Appendix). 114 See Appendix, documents registered in BOA under İ.MVL 82/1637, p. 1 and p. 2; and BOA registered under İ.MVL 90/1845. 115 See Appendix, HAT 1446/19; the archival document in BOA indicates the construction permission for the Hüseyin Bey Mosque issued by Kavala’s Kadi Ahmed Efendi. 116 Since the mosque no longer exists, we can only get this information from old photos and postcards that witness its existence. 117 See: Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots, pp. 69–74. 118 BOA archival document registered under İE.EV 21/2474, indicating the repairs of the wooden elements in it (for Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix). 119 The first mention of Ahmed Efendi Mosque is found in BOA registered under AE.SAMD.III 93/9275.The register mentions the passing of the mosque’s manager and the request for appointing a new one. See Appendix. 120 Machiel Kiel (2002), in his article on Kavala quotes the French traveler Felix Beaujour who visited the town in 1799 and gives maximum numbers of its inhabitants as 3000. See: IA, Vol. 25, 2002, pp. 60–62. 121 Fahmy, K. (2008), Mehmed Ali, p. 5. 122 Barbara Bruni has worked on the Imaret complex of Mehmed Ali in her publication Kavala’s Külliye: The Story of an Institution (La külliye di Kavala: storia di un’istituzione) (Bruni, 2003). She gives a short historical view of the settlement and reveals resources and information about the earliest mentions of Kavala, but her publication mostly focuses on the founding and work of Mehmed Ali’s pious foundation. 123 Although there are different dates for the construction of the Imaret complex, professor Heath Lowry in his publication Mehmed Ali Pasa of Egypt’s Links to the Macedonian Town of Kavala: Architectural Monuments, Inscriptions & Documents from 2011 corrects the dates for the construction of the complex and its phases in a most accurate way, using the existing vakfiyes in the BOA archives and transliterating the marble inscriptions above the entrance doors of the complex, with a final conclusion that the complex was built between 1808 and 1821. See Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots, pp. 11–16. 124 Fraser, being a Christian, probably referred to the imams as Moslem priests since in Islam there are no such titles.

124

History and urban development of Kavala

125 Fraser, F.J. (1906), Pictures from the Balkans, pp. 170–173. 126 Havaric or Hâricîler were members of a Muslim sect, and the müşrikler or şirk were polytheists who shared idols with God, in that they believed that “there is a partner, equivalent or similar in Allah’s nature”. See TDV (1997), Vol. 16, pp. 175–178, and TDV (2010), Vol. 39, pp. 193–198. 127 Registered in BOA under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234) is the vakfiye of the medrese of Mehmed Ali Pasha. See Appendix. 128 See: Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots, pp. 39, 40. 129 See BOA registered under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234). 130 See BOA registered under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234). 131 Explanations of the Qur’anic verses. See TDV, Vol. 40., p. 281.

132 Prophet Hz. Muhammad’s words and practices. See TDV, Vol. 15., pp. 27–64.

133 Islamic law. See TDV, Vol. 12, p. 547.

134 A professor. See TDV, Vol. 31, p. 467.

135 See BOA registered under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234). 136 For detailed explanation of the building phases of the Imaret complex see Lowry & Erunsal (2011), pp. 141–159; and for the vakfiyes see BOA registered under Y.PRK. EV 1/2. 137 See TDV, Vol. 15, p. 299. 138 See BOA registered under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234). 139 See BOA registered under MF.MKT 450/52 from February 4, 1899 (Hicri: N.23.1316). 140 Stefanidou, A. (1986), Το κονάκι του Μουχαμάντ Αλί Πασά στην Καβάλα, Επώνυμα­ αρχοντικά­ των­ χρόνων­ της­ Τουρκοκρατίας, Αθήνα: Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις ΕΜΠ [The mansion of Mehmed Ali Pasha in Kavala, in Famous mansions during the Ottoman domination, Athens: University Press, NTUA], pp. 203–265. 141 Lalenis, K., & Samourkasidou, E. (2013), Wakfs in Kavala, Greece: A legal, political and architectural heritage issue, International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(2), 206–220. 142 Ibid., p. 214. 143 Ibid., p. 216. 144 Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots, p. 16. 145 Cerasi, M. (1988), La città del Levante: Civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX, pp. 142, 143. 146 Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots, p. 16. 147 Kalogirou, N., Nomikos, M., & Papadopoulou, T. (1992), Kavala intra muros: Spatial readings and architectural proposals, Kavala: Municipality of Kavala. 148 Ibid. 149 Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, I.E. (2011), Remembering one’s roots. 150 See BOA: DH.MUİ./101-16-0 from: H-27-05-1328; DH.MUİ./105-69-0 from: H-03-08-1328; MV./142-51-0 from H-21-07-1328. 151 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panagia. 152 The results of this research were presented in Kalogirou, N., Nomikos, M., & Papadopoulou, T. (1992), Kavala intra muros. 153 Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis between the Istanbul house plan types and the plan types of the Ottoman houses in the Panagia district in Kavala (Vergleichende Analyse des Osmanischen Haustyps in Istanbul und dem Panagia Bezirk in Kavala), Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture, 9, 13–27 (www.jccs-a.org/). 154 Kalogirou, N., Nomikos, M., & Papadopoulou, T. (1992), Kavala intra muros; Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis. 155 Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis, p. 26; Ivkovska, V. (2018), Ottoman vernacular architecture in the town of Kastoria (Kesriye), Greece, in M. Bernardini & A. Taddei (Eds.), 15th International Congress of Turkish Art. Proceedings, T.C.

History and urban development of Kavala 125 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

173 174 175 176 177

178 179

Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Università di Napoli “l’Orientale”, Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino, pp. 365–381. Ivkovska, V. (2016), Comparative analysis. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid. Cerasi, M. (1987), Late-Ottoman architects and master builders, Muqarnas Online, 5(1), 87–102. See: Pouqueville, F. (1826), Voyage de la Grece, Paris: Firmin Didot, Père et Fils. Ioannidis, G. (1998), Το­ καπνικό­ στην­ Καβάλα,­ Μαρτυρίες­ και­ στοιχεία­ από­ το­ καπνεμπόριο­και­την­καπνεργασία [Tobacco in Kavala: Testimonies and information from tobacco trade and tobacco processing]. Stefanidou, A. (2000), The tobacco processing areas in Kavala. Thessaloniki: Aristhotelus University of Thessaloniki School of Polytechnics. Kavala became an important multicultural port town in the Aegean. See Ivkovska, V. (2019), Ottoman Heritage in Southern Balkans: The multicultural port town of Kavala, in Cultural landscape in practice, Cham: Springer, pp. 313–326. Rentetzi, M. (2008), Configuring identities through industrial architecture and urban planning: Greek tobacco warehouses, Science & Technology Studies, p. 78. Ziogas, C.P. (1990), Traditional buildings of modern Kavala, Thessaloniki: Altinitzis Athanasios. Garantoudi, E. (2005), The old town of Kavala (7th bc–20th AI): Space, people, historical documents (Vol. I), Kavala: Publication of the Prefecture of Drama Kavala Xanthi/The Cultural Association of Panagia “The Castle”, p. 129. Rentetzi, M. (2008), Configuring identities, p. 64. Ibid., p. 65. Ivkovska, V. (2019), Ottoman heritage in Southern Balkans: The multicultural port town of Kavala, in Cultural landscape in practice (pp. 313–326), Cham: Springer. Rentetzi, M. (2008), Configuring identities, p. 70.

See Appendix, registered in BOA under ML.EEM 7/10 from April 25, 1867 (Rumi:

Ni.13.1283). The Tobacco Regie building for the Ottoman pavilion at the 1889 Paris International Exhibition was built by the Italian–French Levantine architect Alexander Vallaury (Alessandro Vallauri). He also designed the building of the Tobacco Regie Administration in Istanbul that served as the headquarters of the Regie until June of 1925, when all Regie property, including its head Office, was seized by the government of the Republic of Turkey. The building was then transferred to the newly established State Tobacco Monopoly, and in 1933, to the State Monopolies. For more on Vallaury’s works see Ali Murat Aktemur’s (2005) Osmanlı Bankasın’ın Tarihçe ve Mimarisi in Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi (15); and Seda Say’s Alexander Vallaury’s architecture: An overview, at www.levantineheritage.com. Fraser, F.J. (1906), Pictures from the Balkans, p. 169. Ibid., p. 170. See The Institute of Social Movements and Tobacco History, accessible at www. ikkik.gr. Lila, T.S., & Athena, M.K. (2013), Tobacco­ firms­ and­ their­ purchasing­ offices­ in­ Cavalla­ during­ the­ first­ half­ of­ the­ 20th­ c.:­ The­ dissemination­ of­ the­ Austro-­ Hungarian and Swedish architectural style. Stefanidou, A. (2007), Η­ πολη-λιμανι­ της­ Καβαλας­ κατα­ την­ περιοδο­ της­ τουρκοκρατιας,­ Πολεοδομικη­ και­ ιστορικη­ διερευνηση­ (1391–1912), Ιστορικο και Λογοτεχνικο Αρχειο, Καβαλας [The port city of Kavala during the period of Turkish rule: Urban and historical investigation (1391–1912), Kavala: Historical and Literature Archive Kavala]. Ibid. Rentetzi, M. (2008), Configuring identities, p. 70.

126

History and urban development of Kavala

180 Ivkovska, V. (2019), The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: The case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912), pp. 121. 181 Κωδικας Ορθόδοξου Ελληνικής Κοινότητος Καβάλας (“Κώδικας Ιεράς Μητρόπολεως”), 1864–1889 [Code of the Greek Orthodox Community of Kavala (“Code of the Holy Metropolis”), 1864–1889]: 1864; Every home, or city, or kingdom that is divided [eventually] becomes deserted. In contrast, unity and concord bring to the city growth and wealth. Being proponents of concord and unity, desiring the growth of the city of Kavalla and striving for the progress of the beloved youth, we made this holy Codex (Register?), in which all documents of any common or individual case are recorded, for perennial security and permanent presence, and as an example for the next to come, so that they progress towards the better and grow. Any document of any person and of any case not registered inside the Codex and signed by the Council of Notables (Dimogerontia) and the ones involved in the disagreement, and any copy document taken from this Codex without bearing its number, date, year and the four-part Stamp of the Dormition of the Holy Virgin of Kavalla, is deemed invalid and (unwritten?). And all the rendered acts, individual or common in the Codex should be signed by the Council of Notables (Dimogerontia) which will determine a sum to be paid for every act to the public (stores/shops?) and to the secretary, as well as for every published copy [of a document] produced out of this Codex. This Codex consists of 218 sheets, or 436 pages. And so that there won’t be any misuse from the later generations, it has been numbered and certified by our signature and provincial stamp to be permanently evident. The bishop’s representative (Arhieratikos Epitropos) of Kavalla in every period will be responsible for keeping the Codex and all the incoming documents in a folder, noted and numbered by the number of this Codex. 1864 – ηβριγα; [incomprehensible signature, most probably:] Dionysios of Xanthi confirm; Stamp 1: Metropolitan [bishop] Dionysios of Xanthi; Stamp 2: Dormition of the Holy Virgin – Kavalla. 182 See Appendix. Registered in BOA under ŞD 2006/8 from May 8, 1875 (Hicri: R.02.1292). 183 See BOA registered under İ.DH 1003/79213 from September 25, 1886 (Hicri: Z.26.1303). 184 Registered in BOA under ML.EEM 15/7 from August 24, 1870 (Rumi: A.12.1286) and ML.EEM 16/14 from February 3, 1871 (Rumi: Ks.21.1286). For Ottoman transliteration and English translation, see Appendix. 185 Kolonas, V. (2014), Thessaloniki outside the walls: Illustrations of the countryside (1885–1912), Thessaloniki: University Studio Press (H­ Θεσσαλονικη­ Εκτοσ­ Των­ Τειχων­ Εικονογραφια­ Της­ Συνοικιασ­ Των­ Εξοχων­ (1885–1912), Θεσσαλονικη, University Studio Press). 186 See BOA registered under ŞD 2025/9 from April 7, 1896 (Rumi: March 26, 1312). 187 See BOA registered under MF.MKT 183/69 from October 5, 1893 (Hicri: Ra.24.1311). 188 See TDV, Vol. 17, p. 137. 189 See BOA registered under BEO 1770/132716 from December 30, 1901 (Hicri: N.19.1319) and ŞD 2044/3 from December 10, 1901 (Hicri: Ş.28.1319). 190 One of them, called Cedid­Kıpti­mahallesi, was probably settled with Egyptian Christian Copts since the other was Muslim Kıptı­mahalle as stated in some of the BOA archival documents. These Muslim Kıptı could also be Gypsies since the word kıptı was also used for the Gypsy. For more details on the Kıptı see TDV, Vol. 25, pp. 424–426. 191 See BOA registered under ŞD 2033/17 from April 10, 1899 (Hicri: Za.29.1316). 192 BOA ŞD 2033/17. 193 In the town of Kavala that was part of the Selanik vilayet, outside the town walls the newly formed Coptic neighborhood is separated from the Yeni mahalle and named

History and urban development of Kavala 127

194 195

196 197 198 199

200 201 202 203

204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

212 213 214 215

as Küçük mahalle. (“Selanik Vilayeti dahilinde kain Kavala kasabasında sur haricinde yeni teşekkül eden Kıpti mahallesinin Yeni Mahalle’den ayrılarak Küçük Mahalle namıyla tevsimi”.) BOA registered under BEO 1306/97923 from May 10, 1899 (Hicri: Z.29.1316). The Coptic Muslim neighborhood in the town of Kavala was named as Dere mahalle. (“Kavala kasabasında kain atik Kıbti-i Müslim mahallesinin Dere mahallesi namıyla isimlendirmesi”.) Registered in BOA under BEO 1998/149819 from February 12, 1903 (Hicri: Za.14.1320). See BOA registered under ŞD 2046/26 from February 26, 1903 (Hicri: Za.28.1320). See TDV, Vol. 31, p. 51. BOA registered under ŞD 2045/19 from July 26, 1902 (Hicri: R.20.1320). Periklis Fotiadis was a prominent architect who was born in Istanbul to Greek parents. His work is evident even today throughout Istanbul. His major works include the Zografeion Greek High School, the Panagia Greek School in Pera district of Istanbul, the Agia Kyriaki church in Kumkapı. For more on Periklis Fotiadis see Şenyurt, O. (2012), İstanbul­ Rum­ Cemaatinin­ Osmanlı­ Mimarisindeki­ Temsiliyeti, Istanbul: Doğu Kitabevi. Registered in BOA under İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 plan from April 30, 1905. See Appendix. See in BOA registered under and ŞD 2050/19 from March 6, 1905 (Hicri: M.09.1323). On the works of the Greek architects in the Ottoman Empire between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries see Kolonas, V. (2005), Greek architects in the Ottoman Empire 19th-20th centuries, Olkos. See Şarlak, E. (2010), 19. Yüzyılda İstanbul’un Fiziksel Çehresinin Değişmesine Rol Oynayan Kubbeli Rum Ortodoks Kiliseleri, Batılılaşan­ İstanbul’un­ Rum­ Mimarları, Istanbul: Zoğrafyon Lisesi Mezunları Derneği [The role of the domed Orthodox churches in transforming Istanbul’s physical appearance], p. 84. See in BOA registered under DH.MKT 1128/85 from October 18, 1906 (Hicri: Ş.29.1324). Registered in BOA under ML.EEM 7/10 from April 25, 1867 (Rumi: Ni.13.1283); ML.EEM 16/14 from February 3, 1871 (see Appendix) and İ.DH 859/68776 from April 20, 1883 (Rumi: N.08.1299). See in BOA registered under ŞD 2063/15 from May 18, 1909 (Hicri: Ca.09.1327). See in BOA registered under İ.AZN 9/5 from March 3, 1894 (Hicri: Ş.25.1311). See in BOA registered under İ.AZN 9/5 from March 3, 1894 (Hicri: Ş.25.1311). See in BOA registered under ŞD 2063/15 from May 18, 1909 (Hicri: Ca.09.1327). Ivkovska, V. (2019), The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: the case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912), pp. 122. Last to be mentioned in the line of the works dealing with the housing development of Kavala is the book of Panagiotis Ziogas entitled Traditional Buildings of Modern Kavala, which focuses on the neoclassical house construction process that started after 1864, the year when the Christian population, was granted a permission to move out of the historic peninsula and build their new neighborhoods behind the neck of the peninsula in the flat lands by the coast. This is when the neoclassical architecture, a clear sign of the new acquired Greek identity, emerges in the domestic structures and in his book, we follow the rich results of this process. Cerasi, M. (2005), La città dalle molte culture, pp. 58–59. For detailed analysis of the houses built in this period in Kavala see Ziogas, C.P. (1990), Traditional buildings of modern Kavala, Thessaloniki: Altinitzis Athanasios. Ziogas, C.P. (1990), Traditional buildings of modern Kavala, Thessaloniki: Altinitzis Athanasios, p. 23. What Ziogas refers to as “folk architecture” is stratification over centuries of the Ottoman house in the Southern Balkans. See Ziogas, C.P. (1990), Traditional buildings of modern Kavala, p. 30.

3

Conclusion

Upon conquering Northwest Anatolia and the Balkans in the fourteenth and fif teenth centuries, the Ottomans subjugated and assimilated existing towns, so in general they did not need to build new ones. However, in the lands of the Balkans when towns refused to surrender, they were treated accordingly and most of the time were leveled to the ground. In the Balkans, and in Northern Greece in particular, the Ottomans did build new towns that were mostly posi tioned on the main strategic routes and settled with Muslims from other parts of Anatolia through their colonization policy. Since the main religion of the new conquerors was Islam, many Western travelers and scholars referred to these regions as Oriental, outsourced from the Saidian concept of Orientalism. But, in the case of the Balkans, the Orientalism we know from Said could not really be applied due to the pre-existing context that influenced the development of these territories. The Balkans were the lands where Hellenistic and Roman cultures flourished, later became pure Christian, and, as such, were conquered by the Muslim Ottomans. The Ottomans, upon these conquests of the Balkans, did establish themselves as rulers but were primarily guided by the pre-existing his toric and Christian contexts. It is fitting to discuss the “Ottomanization” of cities, because the urban sites that the Ottomans took over were rarely reconstructed. The fates of the cities in the Balkans and especially Northern Greece were deter mined by the manner of their subjugation. In some towns, the Ottomans settled in near proximity to the pre-existing settlements; however, there were also newbuilt towns. In most cases the local influences entwined with the influences imported by the newcomers. The introduction to this work explains that the Ottoman city cannot be simply considered as a generic Islamic city or Oriental but instead must be examined in a different and more accurate way, carefully considering all its components. It is more accurate to speak of it as an Ottoman era town/city built by local builders in predominantly Christian lands but guided by the Muslim rulers. In the vast provinces of the empire, the Ottomans moved into predefined, settled spaces that were altered over time and without a comprehensive plan for each town’s development. However, they did build new towns that they used as admin istrative seats. This mechanism for shaping the city was already broadly applied inside Anatolia but was also later applied in some Balkan urban settlements. In the

Conclusion

129

specific case of Kavala, the conditions were remarkably different and instead created the opportunity to establish a new town. Since the Ottomans under Sultan Murad I (r. 1362–1389) seized the Byzantine town of Christoupolis and com pletely leveled it to the ground, leaving the area vacant for nearly a hundred years, the conditions were perfect for establishing a new strategic center in the North Aegean Sea. Consequently, the Ottoman settlement of Kavala probably did not have any surviving structures ready for use, so the new town’s erection from zero was initiated in the period of Sultan Selim I (r. 1512–1520), later adapting to the ground morphology and following a completely new and different urban program. The Ottoman urban policy in the formation of the cities – including multieth nic and multiconfessional elements – was considered most efficient in organizing trade and ensuring wealth for the empire and was naturally applied in other urban centers, starting with the Aegean port cities or in the great islands of the Eastern Mediterranean. In this sense, the Ottoman administration of the territ ories and the cities under their domination was in relation and in continuity with the Byzantine state organization of the previous centuries. In the aftermath of Ottoman conquests, Ottoman authorities did not make any groundbreaking urban plans or relevant public works except for fortification and consolidation of port structures. These repairs and defensive additions are visible in Kavala, where the first structure to be built was in fact the fortress at the top of the hill to protect the strait between the land and the island of Tassos. Once the security of the settlement was guaranteed, subsequent architecture followed, presented in the building of the so-called complexes (külliye). Large and important port towns from previous eras like Izmir and Thessalo niki survived after the Ottoman conquests by transforming into Ottoman era towns, with typical urban characteristics imposed by the new rulers. Numerous Friday mosques as well as many mescids were built at the cores of neighbor hoods, as well as trading centers like bazaars, bedestens, arastas, and hans and other social facilities. The prosperity of the port towns was mostly due to their strategic position on the shores of the seas. The port towns were used for trade and kept their multiethnic character due to the presence of varieties of people such as Armenians, Jews, Greeks, Venetians, Genoese, Ragusans, and Croats, often merchants. All these different ethnic groups lived each in their own neighborhood, positioned next to or behind each other, creating the city’s multiethnic patchwork milieu. These ethnic quarters gravitated towards the focal commercial point of the town, the bazaar and the port. These same devel opment patterns are also visible in Kavala even though the town was estab lished from scratch and its size is not comparable to other important port cities belonging to the Ottomans. Kavala was a unique Ottoman era town, a fresh, new Ottoman settlement built on an empty plot, with no local or previously existing influences that could have impacted the urban and residential development. There had been no settle ment and no life on the peninsula for nearly a century (from the Ottoman con quest in 1391 until 1478) when the earliest recorded mention of a village/town named Kavala appears in an Ottoman tax register. This is why Kavala is a good

130

Conclusion

example of a genuine Ottoman era town from which we learn about Ottoman urban planning and house typologies outside the capital Istanbul. The formation of Ottoman era towns was based on different aspects of their development. These aspects had equal influence in the urban development and originated in physical, social, and safety-related concerns. In the case of Kavala the following were crucial for the town’s establishment, development, and growth: the protection or control of the settlement and the trade routes over the sea and along the Via Egnatia, the ancient Roman road; the settlement’s water supply, delivered through the long waterway system ending with the aqueduct and the fountains distributing it around the settlement; the way the settlement yielded to the natural morphology of the site; the circulation that developed from the settlement’s street patterns and the gates leading into and out of the enwalled town; the multiethnic aspect of the settlement’s population, a sign of Ottoman tolerance and acceptance, that encouraged diverse communities to live together with mutual respect; trade as a cornerstone of the settlement’s economic prosper ity; and the home/house as the representation of the family and its relation with the community. Sultan Selim I initiated Kavala’s urban development by reconstructing the fort during his reign in order to protect the Sol Kol (the ancient Via Egnatia) from constant pirate raids along the stretch of the route closest to the sea. During the reign of his successor, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566), the grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha endowed the town with important public structures; around these the new town was born and developed within the new walls that he also built. It can be asserted that the first typical Ottoman neighborhoods emerged inside these walls. During this period, Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha built the aqueduct to provide water for the fortress, and this set the foundations for the future development of the settlement. With the construction of Ibrahim Pasha’s Friday mosque by the shores of the port, and other structures such as the public bath, the inn, the dervish lodges, and the fountains, life in the new town was fashioned. As a consequence, all these structures influenced the development of the civic architecture that was also influenced by its positioning on the sloping terrain of the hilly peninsula. The domestic architecture was characterized by introvert, narrow masonry ground floors and upper stories, mainly for two-floor dwellings, built in a light wooden structure with rows of window openings, all facing the harbor and catching the sunlight due to their good orientation. This first urban nucleus of sixteenth-century Ottoman Kavala set the foundations for the town’s subsequent urban development over three and a half more centuries. From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, Kavala’s expansion was more dynamic. Slowly, the architectural program started spreading over the whole peninsula, populating it with new public and civic structures. In this period, Kav ala’s middle town (orta hisar) was developed inside a secondary line of walls surrounding the cliffs of the peninsula to the south, east, and west. Here in the beginning of the seventeenth century new neighborhoods or mahalles emerged, each organized around a mosque or mescid and a small complex (külliye) around it. The main street layout still followed Ottoman era patterns of distribution

Conclusion

131

through the area via its arteries, which followed isohypse lines, and the second ary road network, perpendicular to them, that extended in an organic manner ending with the typical dead ends. The civic architecture in Kavala’s middle town differed from the civic architecture in its first nucleus, the Ibrahim Pasha mahalle; the terrain of the middle town was less steep and offered more wide and open space, so there was no need to build three-story structures to catch the sun and the view. Rather, in the middle town the houses were two-story struc tures, with wider fronts and rows of window openings on the first floor. Some times these houses had small gardens, which was rarely or not at all the case within the first nucleus. The houses followed the typical layout consisting of stone ground floors flanked and closed towards the streets and broad wooden first floors with wider window openings. During the town’s development from the 1520s onward, the new Ottoman settlement of Kavala grew inside its walls and continued to spread over the pen insula until the mid-nineteenth century. The terrain played a dominant role in the distribution and the circulation of the town space. The Ottomans improved the development of the town by conforming to the natural features of its site and the resulting organic distribution of the streets, the main arteries and the second ary road network within the walls, shaping the town. The street layout that developed in the different phases of the town’s growth resulted in urban patterns that coincided with major phases of the town’s urban development. The first phase, from the beginning of the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century – when the town was developing in the intramural areas – was characterized by free, organic street layouts forming irregular urban areas, with many dead ends and curvy passages between the dwellings. Main arteries supplied major access within the settlement sites, while a secondary street network allowed circulation on a smaller, mahalle scale. The second phase of development of the street layout, after the middle of the nineteenth century, was marked by development of the town’s new districts outside the town walls, extra muros, due to lack of space inside the walled peninsula. In this space we can trace yet another second ary level of division, with the aqueduct acting as a sort of a physical barrier between the Christian and Muslim neighborhoods. The morphology of the extra mural areas (the flat lands behind the neck of the peninsula where the walled town was), resulted in a street layout that was more regular, following defined geometries to form urban blocks that fitted into a grid-like system. This was especially noticeable in the Christian neighborhoods of the extra mural town, whereas on the east side of the aqueduct, where the two Muslim neighborhoods were positioned, we can trace an attempt to establish an urban block system. This was the product of the organic distribution of the street layouts within a more defined urban grid. A diversity of ethnic and religious groups coexisted and lived together in this Ottoman port town. The first known Ottoman tax register from 1478 shows the cohabitation of Christians and Muslims. This was followed during the sixteenth century by the arrival of Jews in the aftermath of the Battle of Buda. During the nineteenth century, the era of Mehmed Ali, Coptic Christians arrived in the

132

Conclusion

town when the Pasha was already the Viceroy of Egypt, and the middle of the nineteenth century saw the tobacco boom, bringing Western traders to the town, including Hapsburgs, French, Italians, and Armenians. Kavala’s multiethnicity was most pronounced in the second half of the nineteenth century when the town started developing outside its walls. The new, extramural Kavala began on the sloping hills to the northeast, where new Muslim neighborhoods emerged together with the Coptic Christian and Coptic Muslim (Gypsy) neighborhoods, and in the flat lands by the sea to the northwest, where new Christian neighbor hoods emerged. All these neighborhoods followed an urban organization of sur rounding a main religious structure, whether it was a mosque or a church, as seen in the two Christian neighborhoods of Agios Ioannis and Agios Pavlos. The Jewish population in the town somehow always resided near its central, com mercial hub, the Varoş area and nearby, and the Jewish presence from their arrival can be followed throughout all periods of the town’s historical and urban development and growth. The new town’s development, extra muros, was influenced by the construc tion of many tobacco depots and civic structures positioned around or near them. Tobacco production in the area started at the end of the eighteenth and boomed during the nineteenth century, bringing foreign merchants with foreign social and domestic practices and foreign architectural tastes and styles. The Tanzimat reforms also influenced the architecture of the developing town. These mer chants established themselves and built themselves homes. A new architecture, demonstrating the neoclassical style, started to emerge from these conditions. Houses built in a grander manner to show the wealth and social status of the newcomers appeared throughout the town, giving this new extramural area a completely different look from the one inside the town walls on the peninsula. Here, streets were wider due to the vast amount of free space, the organization of the space was more related now to the tobacco depots that were built on the waterfront, and the orthogonal urban network, the grid system, was more visible in these new neighborhoods. All these circumstances changed Kavala’s previous (sixteenth to first half of the nineteenth century) face, turning the town into a little cosmopolitan center in the Northern Aegean Sea. On a lesser scale, the dwellings of the town underwent their own transforma tions. We do not have visible traces of the previous centuries’ dwellings, but we can say that the street layout directly influenced the civic architecture and the house plan typology from the late eighteenth century onwards. Based on the house typology in intra muros Kavala, the general terms used by the Turkish scholars such as Eldem, Kuban, and Küçükerman to classify the Ottoman house plan typology are clear. The general terms “A”, “B”, and “C” used by the Greek scholars (Moutsopoulos, Kalogirou, Nomikos, etc.) to classify the house plan types on the historic peninsula of Kavala actually correspond with the three floor plan types generally accepted by the above-mentioned Turkish scholars. Type “A” corresponds with the outer hall type plan; Type “B” belongs to the inner hall type floor plan; and Type “C” is the house with the elongated hall, a subtype, the so-called split-belly floor type (karnıyarık). The oldest floor type, “A”,

Conclusion

133

corresponds to the earlier centuries of the Ottoman rule of the settlement, and is actually an outer hall plan, defining a two-spaced top floor with one room and a hall. In Kavala, depending on the size of the plot and the owner’s social status, all three floor plan types coexisted simultaneously throughout the settlement’s development in the Ottoman era. This coexistence of floor plan typologies from different eras is mostly visible in the Ottoman provinces rather than the capital. While in Istanbul the house architectural styles changed century by century, and were visible in the house plan typology that was transforming according to the new fashion and needs, in intra muros Kavala the architectural changes, which mostly depended on the size of the plot and the social background and wealth of the owner, continued to coexist one next to another during the centuries, seeing unremarkable modifications. However, knowing that the lands of the Balkans and Kavala were first settled predominantly by Christians, as attested also in tax registers such as the ones of Kavala from late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, we can infer that the first dwellings were probably built by them; we also know that Christians were mostly in charge of construction works in the empire, through the guilds or so-called tayfas of the great master builders that were well established during the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century. So, it is logical to conclude that it was probably Christians who made the strongest impact on the develop ment and the aesthetic appearance of this Ottoman era house in the Balkans. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the typology and the architec tural stylistic expressions of the houses built in the extension of the town (the western flat lands in the extramural area behind the neck of the peninsula) were also important. Here we see a new urban development more conditioned by the Western model and by the new rising Ottoman bourgeoisie as a result of the newly introduced Tanzimat reforms in the empire. The establishment of tobacco factories and warehouses and the new flow of people, mainly Orthodox Chris tians from Greece as well as Catholic Levantines and Western traders, shaped the new districts. The houses, as well, followed this trend and the neoclassical style corresponded to the influx of the newcomers. Both exteriors and interiors were influenced by the revivalism visible at an architectural scale, in the con struction materials as well as in decorative elements closer to the taste of the Westerners, giving this new part of the town a sort of “European” appeal. Another important distinction can be made regarding the house layout inside and outside the walled town. Overall, inside the walled town, the house plan layout, and the house–street relationship adjusted to the terrain, adhering to the Ottoman precedent. The distribution of space on the upper floors of the houses and the living spaces was driven by the need for view, usable space, light, and in some cases the user’s religious beliefs. These structures in the walled town can be interpreted as provincial architecture. However, the house program developed in the late nineteenth century outside the town walls, influenced by the new Western trends, witnessed new architectural styles as well as a new house program. Here we notice more regular house floor plans, wider spatial organiza tion and “Westernized” interior and exterior spaces.

134

Conclusion

Looking at the present urban conditions of Kavala, we can still read the Ottoman presence. Ottoman traces can be seen in the notable monuments left in the town such as the fortress built by Sultan Selim I on the top of the promon tory; the Ibrahim Pasha endowments such as the gates, the mosque that was later converted into the Church of St. Nicholas, and the public bath the remains of which are today used as a restaurant; the aqueduct built by Sultan Suleimans’ grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha, and the fountains that delivered the town’s water to the people, not operating but still existing; the Halil Bey Mosque and its medrese; the mansion/konak of Mehmed Ali; and the Mehmed Ali Imaret complex that today operates as a luxury hotel. The Ottoman presence is also still visible – though drastically changed – in the urban texture of the walled settle ment as well as in the consistent housing program inside and outside the walls. My recent field research revealed those traces predominantly in the historical peninsula of Kavala. The alleys of the historical peninsula evoke the feelings and impressions of being in an Ottoman era environment. Very little of the atmo sphere has been affected by the architectural interventions that followed. Even though many houses are neglected, torn down, or have undergone bad restora tions, the Ottoman era traces from previous phases are still perceivable. By reading or viewing the memoirs and sketches of travelers who crossed or stopped by in Kavala in the past, it is easy to perceive this extraordinary and unique urban environment. This, however, is not the case in the other areas of the extra mural town, where many of the houses have disappeared over time and are still disappearing, due to neglect and rapid changes introduced by the growth of the modern town and its infrastructures. The five-century Ottoman presence in Kavala (1391–1912) ended abruptly with the termination of the First Balkan War and the consequent Treaty of London on May 30, 1913. The Ottoman Empire lost all territories west of the Enez-Kıyıköy line and these lands were ceded to the Balkan League, an alliance formed by the Balkan kingdoms of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, purposely created to counter the Ottoman Empire. Kavala was briefly occupied by Bulgarians during the First Balkan War in 1912, but at the end of the Second Balkan War was finally captured by Greek troops on June 26, 1913 and became part of modern Greece. Architecture is often used as way to express political powers, religious values, and ideologies. Architecture often represents a continuity of development one over another in the context of urban development, not just in the Ottoman era but in previous and upcoming periods – and Kavala is no exception. As Rabbat says: Architecture, still sees and presents itself in the framework of an uninter rupted and cumulative progression in which each circumscribed historical stage is defined in relation to the sequence of preceding stages and is in turn influencing the formulation of succeeding ones, down to the present. The narrative of architecture is thus saturated with notions of operative and sequential history, disciplinary continuity, and artistically and intellectually

Conclusion

135

referential creativity. And this is how it is matter-of-factly told in most surveys and studies all over the world.1 Though the purposes and the analysis of this work are not strictly focused on the original Ottoman era built environment in the Southern Balkans, it should be noted how until recently researchers have neglected the Ottoman civilization and its influences, especially in the Balkan areas. Studies focused on the impact of Ottoman civilization have started to intensify and developed in order to acknow ledge and understand the urban development process of these vast areas and the impact of the Ottoman world in the borderlands between Europe and the East.

Note 1 Rabbat, N., (2011), The pedigreed domain of architecture: A view from the cultural margin. Perspecta, 44, 6–192 (p. 6).

Appendix

This appendix contains documents collected from the BOA archives and OOZ archives; the documents all refer to Ottoman Kavala. In Appendix Table 1, the author provides a short description of their content in English and presents them in chronological order, from the date 1478 forward. Dates in the table are presented according to the Muslim Calendar (Hicri, Rumi) followed by the Common Era calendar (e.g. Z.29.883/1478). Centuries are indicated according to the Common Era only (e.g. fifteenth century). The English translation tries, where possible, to retain the original Ottoman authenticity of the handwritten documents. Nouns are kept in the original Ottoman transliteration when it is impossible to find exact corresponding terminology in English. For the transliteration from Ottoman in modern Turkish orthography and the English translation of the Appendix documents I would like to thank Mr. Fuat Recep, Mrs. Elif Derin Can, and Mr. Ayhan Han. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

File number TT.d 7, s. 88–89 TT.d 70, s. 3–4 A.{DVNSMHM 7/147

Subject

Tax register. Tax register. Imperial decree for allocating one pipeline for the needs of the prison in the fortress. A.{DVNS. Imperial decree for repairs of MHM 39/634 damages to the aqueduct. HAT 1446/19 Request for permission from the judiciary to build the Hüseyin Bey mosque in the middle town. İE.ŞKRT 1/9 Official appointment of a new repairman for the state waterways. İE.EV 21/2474 Repairs to the Halil Bey mescid. AE.SAMD.III First mention of Ahmed Efendi 93/9275 mosque. C.BLD 64/3199 Request for issuance of a new license for the Ibrahim Pasha bathhouse and inn foundation. AE.SAMD III Official record of legal procedure 188/18240 relating to a murder at the Mustafa Ağa inn near the Ibrahim Pasha Mosque.

Hicri

Year

Z.29.883 Z.29.925 S.29.975

1478 1519 1567

Ra.03.988

1580

B.10.1014

1605

R.16.1016

1607

Z.11.1083 B.05.1116

1673 1704

B.12.1125

1713

L.18.1137

1725

Appendix 137 No. 11.

File number

Subject

C.BLD. 59/2937 Letter written to the palace by the Ibrahim Pasha Mosque and hamam foundation manager in order to report unreceived incomes. 12. AE.SMHD.I Sultan’s order for repairs to Kavala 85/5744 fortress and estimated costs of the works. 13. Y.PRK.EV 1/2 Kavala Mehmed Ali Pasha medrese vakif. There are two foundations in this document group. The first one is Mehmed Ali Pasha’s foundation of the medrese and the library, which were built in Kavala, and the second one is about the medrese which was built in the same place, and which he added to this first foundation. 14. İ.MVL 82/1637 Head of Istanbul’s armory (tophane) page 1 and 2 appointed to estimate the damage to the fort and town walls of Kavala. 15. ML.EEM 7/10 Determination of the succession of the trustee and assets of Kavala’s Kumluk area. 16. ML.EEM 15/7 Official announcement of the parcelation, evaluation and future sale of land in the Kumluk area. 17. ML.EEM 16/14 Request from the Khedive of Egypt to buy the unused lands in the Kumluk area outside Kavala walls. 18.a,b,c ŞD 2006/8 Request to build a tax-office, a quarantine building, and a pier to collect taxes from traded goods at the port entry. 19. İ.DH 859/68776 Report and additional document related to legalizing and sale of parcels in the Kumluk area. 20. İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 Request for permission and project proposal to construct the Agios Pavlos church and metropolitan’s lodge. 21. DH.MKT Request for permission to bequeath 1128/85 and endow a house to the Jewish community to establish a school for female and male children in the Yeni mahalle (New neighborhood). 22. OOZ Fond no. List of names of prisoners who need 43/Arch.Un.4 payment for rowing the galley that protects the town of Kavala.

Hicri

Year

L.29.1143

1731

Za.18.1147 1735

C.24.1234

1813 1819

L.14.1262

1846

Rumi: 1867 Ni.13.1283 Rumi: A.12.1286

1870

Rumi: 1871 Ks.21.1286 R.02.1292

1875

Rumi: N.08.1299

1883

S.24.1323

1905

Ş.29.1324

1906

S.Ra.1004

1595

138

Appendix

1 Registered in BOA under TT.d 7, pages 88–89 from 1478

(Hicri: Z.29.883)

Hane müslim 13

Hane gebr 75

Mücerred 8

Bive 8

Muslim households 13

Non-Muslim households 75

Bachelors 8

Widows 8

2 Registered under TT.d 70, page 3–4 from 1519 (Hicri: Z.29.925) Nâhiye-i Drama An-­hâshâ-i­padişah-ı­âlem-penâh­-hallede­mülkehûNefs-­i­Kavala­tâbiʻ-i­Drama Hâne-i müslim 22

Hâne-i gebr 61

Mücerred 2

Bive 10

Hasıl­455 Town of Drama Property of the Sultan Town of Kavala subject to the town of Drama

Muslim households 22

Non-Muslim households 61

Bachelors 2

Widows 10

Total 455

Appendix 139

3 Registered under A.{DVNSMHM 7/147 from September 3, 1567 (Hicri: S.29.975) Yazıldı­fi­29­Saferü’l-muʻazzam­sene­975 Kavala­Kapudanı­ademisine­verildi.­Fi­selh-­i­S­sene­975 Kavala­Kadısına­ve­Kapudanına­hüküm­ki, Dergah-­ı­ muʻallâma­ mektub­ gönderip­ kale-­i­ Kavala’da­ olan­ mîrî­ esirlerin­ ve­ mücrimlerin­hapsi­için­zindan­bina­olunmak­ferman­olunmağın­mezbur­binaya­ şürûʻ­ olunduğun­ ve­ zikr­ olunan­ esirlerin­ melâzimesi­ için­ kale-­i­ mezburede­ on­ dört­çeşme­olup­suya­ihtiyaçları­olmamağın­zikr­olunan­çeşmelerden­bir­masura­ su­verilmek­için­arz­ettiğin­ecilden­buyurdum­ki­arz­olunduğu­üzre­zikr­olunan­ çeşmelerden­birinden­mezbur­mahbusları­için­bir­masura­su­verdiresin. Written on September 3, 1567 Given to Admiral of Kavala. On September 4, 1567 Decree to the judge and admiral of Kavala, Since you wrote to my Sublime Porte and said that you need one water pipeline for the needs of the prison ordered to be built in the castle of Kavala for the imprisonment of the state captives and criminals, I ordered one water pipeline of the 14 operating fountains which are inside the castle to be given to the prisoners as previously requested.

4 Registered under A.{DVNS.MHM 39/634 from April 18, 1580 (Hicri: Ra.03.988) Kavala­kadısına­hüküm­ki, Merhum­ ve­ mağfurun­ leh­ ceddim­ Sultan­ Süleyman­ Han­ -aleyhirrahmeti­ ve’l­ gufranın-­ evkafından­ Kavala’da­ bina­ olunan­ çeşmenin­ yevmî­ beş­ akçe­ ile­ su­ yolcusu­ olan­ kimesne­ sanatında­ mahir­ olmakla­ su­ yolu­ harabe­ müşrif­ olup­ çeşme­ muʻattal­ olmakla­ müslümanlar­ müzâyaka­ çektiklerin­ ve­ mukaddemâ­ çeşmenin­su­yolcusu­olup­ihtiyarıyla­ferağat­eyleyen­Hızır­için­üstad­olup­geri­ ona­ verilirse­ yollar­ tamir­ eder­ ve­ hizmetinin­ uhdesinden­ gelir­ çeşmeye­ su­ cârî­ olmakla­ âyende­ ve­ revende­ intifâʻ­ ederleridi­ deyü­ südde-i­ saʻâdetime­ ilam­ olunmağın­buyurdum­ki­vardıkda­bu­babda­bizzât­mukayyed­olup­göresin­ilam­ olunduğu­ gibi­ olup­ bilfiʻl­ su­ yolcu­ olan­ ehil­ olup­ tamire­ kâdir­ olmakla­ olmamakla­ yolları­ harab­ olmuştur.­ Ve­ çeşmeye­ ne­ zamandan­ beri­ su­ cari­ değildir­ nicedir­hiç­bir­cânibe­mâil­olmayıp­tamam­asıl­vazʻiyyeti­ile­malum­edinip­dahi­ sıhhati­üzre­ale’t-tafsîl­yazıp­arz­eyleyesin Order to the kadi of Kavala, The fountain, built in Kavala from the foundation of the deceased and forgiven Sultan Suleyman Khan, is on the verge of being ruined because the current person responsible for the hydraulic works, working for five akçe per day, is not

140

Appendix

skillful in his vocation; for this reason, the Muslim people living in the castle are having difficulties with water supply since the fountain became unusable. I have been notified that if Hızır, who had previously been in charge of the hydraulic works and voluntarily resigned, is reassigned, he will repair the aqueduct, the water will again flow from the fountain and the people can benefit from this. When this request reaches you, I order you to be attentive and investigate the accuracy of the above-written statements, whether the aqueduct is not working as a result of unprofessional conduct of the current responsible person, since when the fountain has not provided water, find out the actual situation and write objectively in details.

5 Registered under HAT 1446/19 from November 21, 1605 (Hicri: B.10.1014) Telhis Kavala­Kadısı­dailerinin­arzıdır. Kavala­Kalesi­içinde­bir­ehl-­i­hayr­câmi-i­şerif­bina­etmek­isteyip­izn-­i­hümayun­ ricâsına­arz­eder. Atabe-i aliyye-i âlem hezâr ve südde-i seniyye-i gerdun iktidâr lâ-zâle ilâ yevmi’l-karâr­türâbına­arz-­ı­dâ‘î-i­bî-mikdar­budur­ki, Kale-­i­ Kavala­ ahalisi­ bu­ dâ‘ilerine­ gelip­ iç­ hisarında­ kesret-­i­ nâs­ ve­ havf-­i­ küffâr­ olup­ cami-­i­ şerif­ bina­ olunmağa­ ziyâde­ ihtiyac­ vardır­ deyü­ cem‘­ olduklarında­ fi’l-vâki‘­ mahall-­i­ mezburda­ câmi‘-i­ şerif­ bina­ olunması­ lazım­ olduğu­ ecilden­ kale-­i­ mezbure­ kapudanı­ Hüseyin­ Bey­ bendeleri­ mahall-­i­ merkumda­cami-­i­şerif­binası­için­emr-­i­şerif­inayet­buyurulmak­ricâsına­vâki‘­hal­ der-­i­devlet­türâbına­arz­olundu.­Bâkî­fermân­der­adlindir. Tahrîren­fî­evâyil-i­şehr-i­Recebi’l-mürecceb­sene­erba‘a­aşar­ve­elf. Ez‘afü’l-ibâd­Ahmed­Elhakîr­bi-­takvallâh. Telhis1

Submission of the judge Ahmed of Kavala.

A generous person wants to build a mosque inside the Kavala fortress, and he

asks the permission of the Sultan. […]

The submission of the judge is that:

The inhabitants of the Kavala castle have come to the judge and say that they

fear the infidels, so a mosque is needed in the inner fortress. Due to this require-

ment, Hüseyin Bey, admiral of the castle, wants permission from the state for

construction of the mosque in the castle. The permanent decree belongs to the

fair one, the Sultan.

Written on November 12–21, 1605.

Yours truly Ahmed.

Appendix 141

6  Registered in BOA under İE.ŞKRT 1/9 from August 10, 1607 (Hicri: R.16.1016) Arz mucebince berat verilmek buyuruldu. Fi 10 Ca sene 1016 Dergah-­ı­felek­şan­ve­bargah-­ı­geyvan­nişan­türâbına­arz-­ı­dâ‘î-i­nişan­budur­ki, Kale-­i­Kavala’ya­gelen­mirî­su­yollarına­yevmî­beş­akçe­vazife­ile­meremmetçi­ olan­Sinan­b.­İnebali­nam­kimesne­ihmâl­ve­müsâhele­ettiği­sebebiyle­su­yolları­ harab­olup­ref‘i­lazım­olmağın­yerine­işbu­râfi‘ü­ruk‘a-­i­rıkkiyyet­Mertali­nâm­ zimmî­ su­ yolu­ tamiri­ emrinde­ ehil­ olduğu­ ecilden­ vazife-­i­ merkume­ ile­ mezbur­ zimmîye­ tevcîh­ olunup­ berât-ı­ âlîşân­ sadaka­ ve­ ihsan­ buyurulmak­ ricasına­ evvelki­vâki‘­hâldir.­Der-­i­devlet­türâbına­arz­olundu.­Bâkî­ferman­der­adlindir. Tahrîren­fi­16­şehr-i­Rebiülâhir­sene­1016 Eddâʻî­Elfakir­Elhakîr­Halil­Elkadı­bi-­Kavala Bende­Hüseyin­Kapudan-­ı­kale-­i­Kavala­hâlâ Tezkire­dade­icabet-­i­Davud­Efendizâde­fi­15­Ca­sene­1016 Request given through a decree with license permit on October 2, 1607. The petition submitted to – […] – the state officials is that: Sinan b. Inebali was appointed as a repairman to the state water supply system inside the fortress of Kavala, in exchange for five akçe per day. The water supply system has been wrecked due to his incompetence and unprofessional performance. Since these damages should be repaired, the non-Muslim named Mertali is master of such repair works, so this task should be given to him. This petition is in order to request permission from the Sultan for his appointment. It is submitted to the state. The abiding decree belongs to the Sultan, the fair one. Date August 10, 1607 Your humble servant, Halil the judge of Kavala Hüseyin, the admiral of Kavala’s castle The official letter was given to Davud Efendizade on October 7, 1607.

7  Registered in BOA under İE.EV 21/2474 from March 30, 1673 (Hicri: Z.11.1083) Kavala­Kadısının­arzıdır. Kavala’da­ vâki­ içkalede­ Halil­ Bey­ Mescidi­ harâbe­ müşrif­ olmamakla­ tamire­ vakfın­ müsaadesi­ olmamağın­ ashab-­ı­ hayrâtdan­ Dizdar­ Hacı­ Ahmed­ mescid-­i­ mezburu­ tamir­ ve­ kendi­ malıyla­ hasbeten­ lillâhi­ te‘âlâ­ cami­ eylemek­ murâd­ etmekle­izn-­i­hümayunları­erzânî­buyurulmak­ricasına­arz­eder­ol­babda­emr­u­ ferman­şevketli­ve­azametli­padişahımındır. Arsa-­i­izzet­mekine­arz-­ı­dâ‘î-i­kemine­budur­ki, Kavala’da­içkalede­vaki­Halil­Bey­Mescidi­ve­minaresi­harabe­müşrif­olmakla­ tamir­ ve­ meremmetine­ vakfının­ müsaadesi­ olmamağın­ sâhibü’l-hayrât­ ve’l­ hasenât­Dizdar­Elhac­Ahmed­bendeleri­kendi­malından­tamir­ve­meremmet­edip­ mescid-­i­ mezkurun­ cami-­i­ şerif­ olmağa­ müsaadesi­ olup­ ve­ ahalisi­ bir­ cami-­i­

142

Appendix

şerife­ dahi­ muhtac­ olmağın­ merkum­ Elhac­ Ahmed­ kullarına­ kendi­ malıyla­ mescid-­i­mezkuru­cami-­i­şerif­etmeğe­izin­ve­icâzet­için­emr-­i­âlîşân­sadaka­ve­ ihsan­ buyurulmak­ ricasına­ der-­i­ devlet­ masîre­ arz­ olundu.­ Bâkî­ ferman­ der­ adlindir. Hurrire­ fi’l-yevmi’l-hâdî­ aşar­ min­ Zilhicceti’ş-şerîfe­ li­ sene­ selâsin­ ve­ mieteyn­ ve elf. Eddâ‘î­li’d-devleti’l-aliyye­Mustafa­Elkadı­bi-­Kavala Request of the judge of Kavala. Even though the mescid of Halil Bey, which is located inside the walls of Kavala, is on the verge of being destroyed, and the endowment does not allow repair, Dizdar Hacı Ahmed, a charitable one, wants to repair this mescid and turn it into a mosque for the sake of Allah, with his own finances and for this he demands the Sultan’s permission. In this regard, the permit holder is the majestic and magnificent Sultan. The submission is that: The mescid and minaret of Halil Bey, which are located inside the walled town, are being ruined and the pious foundation does not give permission for its repairs but allows that Dizdar Elhac Ahmed does the repairs with his own money and turns it into a mosque. Since the people living inside the walled town also need a mosque, the permission of the state is required for Elhac Ahmed to transform the mescid into a mosque with his own finances. Abiding decree belongs to the Sultan.

Written on November 14, 1673.

The Great State’s judge of Kavala, Mustafa.

8  Registered in BOA under AE.SAMD.III 93/9275 from November 3, 1704 (Hicri: B.05.1116) Der-­i­devlet­mekine­arz-­ı­dâʻî-i­kemîne­budur­ki, Kale-­i­ Kavala’da­ vaki­ merhum­ Ahmed­ Efendi­ binâ­ eylediği­ cami-­i­ şerifin­ nukud-­ı­ mevkufesine­ ve­ evkaf-­ı­ sairesine­ yevmî­ on­ akçe­ vazife­ ile­ mütevellîsi­ olan­Halil­bin­Mehmed­fevt­olup­ol­vechle­yeri­hali­ve­hizmeti­muʻattal­kalmağın­ işbu­râfiʻi-i­arz-­ı­ubudiyet­Mehmed­bin­Hüsameddin­dâʻîleri­her­vechle­mahal­ve­ müstehık­ olmakla­ tevliyet-­i­ mezkure­ vazîfe-i­ merkumesiyle­ mezbureye­ tevcih­ buyurulup­ yedine­ berat-­ı­ şerif-i­ âlîşân­ sadaka­ ve­ ihsan­ buyurulmak­ ricasıyla­ evvelki­vâkiʻü’l-hâldir­der-­i­devlete­iʻlâm­olunmak­bâkî­emr­men­lehü’l-emrindir.­ Hurrire­ fi’l-yevmi’l-hâmis­ ve’l-ışrîn­ min­ Cumade’l-âhire­ li-­sene­ sitte­ aşara­ ve­ mie ve elf El-­Abdüddâʻî­li’d-devleti’l-aliyye­el-­mahmiyye­Feyzullah­Elkadı­li-­Kavala Mucebince tevcih olunmak buyuruldu

Appendix 143 5 Receb sene [1]116 Ber-muceb-i defter-i hazine Vakf-­ı­Kadı­Ahmed­Efendi­der­Kavala Halil­ibn-­i­Mehmed­el-­mütevellî Yevm 10 Vech-­i­ meşruh­ üzre­ defterde­ masturdur­ ferman­ devletli­ sultanım­ hazretlerinindir. Fi­4­B­sene­1116 Tatbik Mutabık [Mühür] The submission of this worthless plea to the state is that: Halil bin Mehmed, who worked for ten akçe per day as trustee of the money and other endowments of the mosque built by deceased Ahmed Efendi, has died. Therefore, his place and service have become vacant. Mehmed bin Hüsameddin who submits this petition is suitable and fitting in every aspect for this duty. This is the petition which is notified to the state with the request of Sultan’s order. Written on Tuesday, October 20, 1704.

The Great State’s judge of Kavala Feyzullah.

In accordance to be approved as requested.

November 3, 1704.

As required the treasury registry

The endowment of Kadı Ahmed Efendi of Kavala The trustee Halil ibn-i Mehmed The day 10 Written in the book of records as described, the decree belongs to the Sultan Confirmed Agreed [Seal]

9 Registered in BOA under C.BLD 64/3199 from August 4, 1713 (Hicri: B.12.1125) Dergah-­ı­felek­medar­ve­bargah-­ı­gerdun­iktidar­türabına­arz-­ı­bende-­i­bî-mikdar­ve­zerre­hâksâr-ı­budur­ki, Kavala­ sakinlerinden­ olup­ Kavala­ Kalesi’nde­ vaki­ merhum­ ve­ mağfûrun­ leh­ Maktul­ İbrahim­ Paşa­ evkafının­ yevmî­ dört­ akçe­ vazife­ ile­ hamam­ ve­ han­ ve­ müşâhere­câbîsi­olan­Süleyman­kullarının­yedinde­olan­bi-­emrillâh­berâtı­zâyi‘­ olmakla­yedine­zâyi‘den­berât-ı­âlîşân­sadaka­ve­ihsan­olunmak­babında­pâye-i­ serir-­i­a‘lâya­arz­olundu.­Bâkî­ferman­ve­lutf­u­ihsan­der-­adlindir.­Bende­Abdulllah­el-­Mütevellî-i­sağir-i­vakf-­ı­mezbur­hâlâ

144

Appendix

Kaydı­mucebince­zayiinden­tevcih­olunmak­buyuruldu. 12 Receb sene [1]125 Ber-muceb-i defter-i hazine Vakf-­ı­merhum­Maktul­İbrahim­Paşa­der­Kavala Süleyman­Câbî-i­hamamân­ve­han­ve­müşâhere­yevmiye­4 Berat­ sitâde­ […]­ Mustafa­ bâ-ruûs-ı­ hümayun­ ve­ bâ-arz-­ı­ Abdullah­ Mütevellî-i­ Sağîr­fi­12­L­sene­1115 Vech-­i­ meşruh­ üzre­ defterde­ masturdur­ emr­ u­ ferman­ saadetli­ sultanım­ hazretlerinindir. Fi 7 Receb sene 1125 The submission to the state […] is that, Süleyman, who collects the monthly revenues of the inn and bathhouse belonging to the endowment of the deceased Maktul Ibrahim Pasha in exchange for ten akçe per day, and who is one of the residents of Kavala, has lost his concession. This is the submission for the request of a new document. The abiding decree, favor, and beneficence belong to the Sultan. From me Abdullah, still a trustee of the mentioned pious foundation.

As required in the registration, a lost concession must be reissued.

August 4, 1713.

As required in the treasury registry

The pious foundation of the deceased Maktul Ibrahim Pasha in Kavala

Debt collector of inn and bathhouse, Süleyman, 4 akçe per day The receiver of the warrant […] Mustafa with ruus-ı hümayun (government office dealing with the work of people employed in pious foundations) and with the petition of Abdullah the trustee, on February 18, 1704

Written in the book of register as described, the decree belongs to the Sultan,

on November 16, 1703.

10  Registered under AE.SAMD III 188/18240 from June 29, 1725 (Hicri: L.18.1137) Kavala­Mutasarrıfına­ve­kadısına­hüküm­ki, Yazıla Kavala’da­ vaki­ müteveffâ­ İbrahim­ Paşa­ Cami-­i­ şerifi­ kurbunde­ Dizdar-­ı­ sâbık­ Mustafa­ Ağa­ hanında­ müsâfereten­ sakin­ olan­ Arab­ Elhac­ Ahmed­ mâh-ı­ Ramazan-­ı­ şerifinin­ yirmi­ yedinci­ gecesi­ han-­ı­ mezburda­ katl­ olunmuş­ bulunmakla­ marifet-­i­ şerʻle­ tecessüs­ ve­ suâl­ olundukda­ Kavala­ sakinlerinden­ Kara­ Beşe­ demekle­ maruf­ Hacı­ İbrahim­ nâm­ kimesnenin­ bir­ nefer­ Arabı­ ile­ altın­ babası­Hasan­nam­kimesnenin­Arabı­katl­eylediğin­haber­verdiklerinden­sonra­ müteveffâ-yı­mezburun­varis-­i­marufu­olmadığına­binâen­zuhur­eden­muhallefât­ ve­emval­ve­eşyası­canib-­i­büytü’l-mâle­ait­olup­lakin­yanında­mevcud­olan­beş­ nefer­ Arab­ gulâmının­ ikisi­ yanında­ mevcud­ ve­ üç­ neferi­ firar­ etmekle­ etrafa­ adamlar­gönderilip­firar­edenleri­ahz­ve­baʻdehû­birisi­kendi­eceli­ile­vefat­edip­ müteveffâ-yı­merkumun­yanında­mevcud­bulunan­nukud­ve­eşyası­marifet-­i­şerʻle­

Appendix 145 zabt­ ve­ defter­ olundukda­ mirlivâ­ havâssından­ olan­ beytülmâle­ isabet­ eden­ ve­ masarıf-ı­sâireden­mâʻadâ­kusur­altmışaltı­bin­dört­yüz­doksan­üç­akçesin­hâlâ­ ol­ tarafda­ mahfûz­ olduğun­ ve­ defter­ olunan­ eşyadan­ mâʻadâ­ nakid­ akçesin­ katilleri­olan­Arablar­alıp­sahiblerine­mi­verdiler­yoksa­kendileri­mi­ihtifâ­eylediler­ malum­ olmadığın­ sen­ ki­ mir-­i­ mûmâ-ileyhsin­ Dersaadetime­ arz­ ve­ memhur­ defterin­ dahi­ irsal­ eylemen­ ile­ Dersaadetimden­ mübaşir­ tayin­ olunan­ (…)­ zîde­ kadruhû­ ile­ işbu­ emr-­i­ şerif­ vusulünde­ defter­ mucebince­ gayr-­i­ ez-­ ihrâcât­maktul-­i­mezburun­zabt­olunan­eşyasından­hâlâ­ol­tarafda­mahfuz­olan­ altı­bin­dört­yüz­doksan­akçeyi­mübaşir-i­mûmâ-ileyhe­teslim­ve­irsal­ve­teslim-­i­ Hazine-­i­ amire­ ettirilip­ bundan­ mâʻadâ­ katal­ arabın­ ahz­ ve­ ihfâ­ eyledikleri­ emval­ve­eşyayı­mevlalarına­mı­verdiler­âhar­kimesnelere­mi­verdiler­mezburân­ Arablar­mübâşir-i­mûmâ-ileyh­ile­marifeti­ve­marifet-­i­şerʻle­istintâk­ve­mevcud-­ı­ emvâlden­Arabın­ihtifâ­eyledikleri­nukûd­ve­eşya­gereği­gibi­teftiş­ve­tefahhus­ve­ bilcümle­zuhura­getirilip­mevcuduyla­maʻan­mübâşire­teslim­ve­irsal­olunup­bir­ vechle­ musâmaha­ ve­ tefahhus­ olunmamak­ babında­ ferman-­ı­ âlîşân­ sadır­ olmuşdur. Muhasebe-i Evvel Fi­18­L­sene­1137 Decree to the administrative chief of the province and the judge of Kavala Arab Elhac Ahmed, one of the temporary residents in the inn of Dizdar (guard of the castle) Mustafa Aga located close to the mosque of the deceased Ibrahim Pasha in Kavala, has been found murdered at this inn on the twenty-seventh night of the Ramadan (June 25, 1725). As a result of investigations, it is reported that the Arab was killed by a man known as Hasan Altan babasi2 and another Arab, a slave to Hacı İbrahim who is also known as Kara Beşe, from Kavala. Since the deceased does not have a known heir, the arising heritage, property, and goods belong to the state treasury. However, even though two of his five Arab slaves were with him, three of them escaped. Men were sent around to arrest them, but afterward one of them died by natural causes. When cash and goods were found next to the victim they were seized and registered in accordance with the Islamic law. It is registered that 66,493 akçe were found in the possession of the killed Arab. It is not known whether there was extra money taken, besides the above-registered money, and whether they were taken by the murderer Arabs and given to their masters. Since you are the administrative chief of the province, when this order comes to you with […] appointed as a bailiff from Istanbul, send a submission and a sealed registration to Istanbul, and then apart from the sent listed goods of the victim, give the remaining 6490 akçe to the bailiff for the purpose of delivery to the state treasury. Furthermore, the murderer Arabs must be questioned by the bailiff on whether they have taken and hidden belongings from the victim, or they have given them to someone else or to their masters. The Sultan orders that the cash and property stolen by Arabs from the goods must be inspected properly and should be sent by giving them to the bailiff.

146

Appendix

11 Registered in BOA under C.BLD. 59/2937 from May 6, 1731 (Hicri: L.29.1143) Devletli­saadetli­merhametli­sultanım­hazretleri­sağ­olsun Nefs-­i­Demirhisar’da­vaki­Atîk­İbrahim­Paşa­bina­ve­vakf­eylediği­çifte­hamamı­ Kavala’da­ vaki­ cami-­i­ şerifinin­ mürtezikalarına­ ve­ imaret-­i­ amirelerine­ şurut-ı­ vakfiye-­i­ ma‘mûlün­ bihâsında­ tahsis­ ve­ tayin­ eyleyip­ âharın­ bir­ türlü­ medhali­ yok­ iken­ Demirhisar’da­ sakin­ Seyyid­ Ali­ hilaf-­ı­ şart­ ben­ bu­ hamamı­ nam­ kimesneden­ hüccetle­ mülkiyet­ üzre­ aldım­ ve­ hedm­ edip­ müceddeden­ tamir­ ve­ termim­ etmekle­ benim­ mülküm­ olur­ deyip­ hilaf-­ı­ şurut-ı­ vakf­ hüccet­ ibraz­ edip­ canib-­i­ vakfdan­ kat‘â­ yedinde­ bir­ türlü­ senedi­ olmayıp­ hemen­ kavl-­i­ hatta­ ve­ musanna‘­ hücceti­ on­ sene­ mikdarı­ zabt­ ve­ sinîn-i­ mezkûrelerde­ zimmetinde­ müctemi‘­olunmuş­hamam-­ı­mezkurun­icaresini­şart­olunan­mahallere­vermeyip­ gadr-­i­ küllî­ etmekle­ bundan­ akdem­ vakf-­ı­ şerifiniz­ müfettişi­ efendinin­ ilamı­ ile­ verilen­ferman-­ı­âlî­ile­taleb­olundukda­itaat-­i­ferman­etmeyip­ve­kuvvet-­i­irtişâsı­ sebebiyle­ mu‘înleri­ dahi­ olmağın­ anda­ icrâ-yı­ ahkam­ mümkün­ olmamakla­ verilen­ahkam­mantukunca­İstanbul’a­dahi­ihzar­olunmayıp­adem-­i­itaatden­naşi­ ibtal-i hak edip mahallinde bir vechle mukavemet mümkün olunmamakla âleme mebzûl­olan­eltaf-­ı­âliyelerinden­mercudur­ki­mukaddemâ­verilen­ferman­derkenar­ manzur-­ı­ âlîleri­ ve­ malum-­ı­ devletleri­ buyuruldukda­ mezbur­ eyalet-­i­ Rumeli’nde­ Niş’e­ karîb­ mahallerde­ ehl-­i­ hizmet­ olmakla­ Demirhisar’da­ ve­ bulunduğu­mahallerde­bulunduğu­mahallerde­ahz­ve­Divan-­ı­Niş’e­hazar­ve­Niş­ Kadısı­ istimâ‘­ ve­ hamam-­ı­ mezbur­ canib-­i­ vakfa­ zabt­ ve­ beher­ sene­ furuht­ olunduğu­vech­üzre­mal-­ı­vakf­kendiden­tahsil­ olunmak­babında­emr­u­ferman­ merhametli­sultanım­hazretlerinindir. Bende­Süleyman­Kaymakam-­ı­Mütevellî­hâlâ Evkaf­Müfettişi­Efendi­şer‘le­görüp­ilam­eyleyesin­deyü­buyuruldu. Verilen­derkenar Praveşte­ve­Zihne­ve­Demirhisar­kadılarına­hüküm­ki, Sadrazam­ nezaretinde­ olan­ evkafdan­ müteveffâ­ Maktul­ İbrahim­ Paşa­ b.­ Atîk­ vakfının­evladiyet­ve­meşrutiyet­üzere­mütevellî­olan­kıdvetü’l-emâsil­ve’l-akrân­ İbrahim­–­zîde­kadruhû-­südde-i­saadetime­arzuhal­edip­vâkıf-ı­mezburun­vakfiye-­i­ mamulün­ bihâsında­ mukayyed­ Praveşte­ ve­ Zihne­ ve­ Demirhisar­ kazalarında­vaki­üç­aded­çifte­hamamları­murûr-ı­eyyâm­ile­bir­mikdar­harabe­ müşrif­ oldukda­ kasaba-­i­ mezburede­ sakin­ zaleme­ ve­ tağallübeden­ bazıları­ hamam-­ı­ mezburları­ fuzuli­ zabt­ ve­ on­ seneden­ mütecâviz­ icarelerini­ vermeyip­ zimmetlerinde­ müctemi‘­ olan­ icare-­i­ vakfı­ tevliyeti­ hasebiyle­ taleb­ eyledikde­ hamam-­ı­mezburlar­bizim­mülkümüzdür­deyü­edâda­ta‘allül­ve­vakfa­gadr­eylediklerin­ bildirip­ ol­ babda­ hükm-i­ hümâyûnum­ rica­ ve­ sadrazam­ nezaretinde­ olan­ evkafdan­ müteveffâ­ Maktul­ İbrahim­ Paşa­ b­ atîk­ evkafı­ musakkafâtından­ olup­vilayet-­i­Rumeli’nde­Praveşte­ve­Zihne­ve­Demirhisar­kazalarında­vaki­üç­ aded­ çifte­ hamamlar­ vâkıf-ı­ mezburun­ vakfiye-­i­ mamulün­ bihâsında­ mastur­ ve­ mukayyed­olup­kadimden­beri­zikr­olunan­hamamlar­taraf-­ı­vakfdan­zabt­ve­rabt­

Appendix 147 olunagelip­bir­vechle­dahl­ve­ta‘arruz­olunmak­icab­etmez­iken­hamam-­ı­mezbu-

run­ her­ biri­ ayan-­ı­ vilayet­ ve­ mütegallibeden­ kimesneler­ hilaf-­ı­ şart-ı­ vâkıf­

fuzulen­ ve­ teğallüben­ zabt­ u­ rabt­ ve­ mahsul-­i­ vakfı­ bi-­gayr-i­ hakkin­ gasb­ ve­

te‘addî­ ve­ vakf-­ı­ şerîfe­ gadr-­i­ küllî­ eyledikleri­ sikâ’­ ihbarı­ ile­ mütehakkık­

olmakla­vakf-­ı­mezburun­zikr­olunan­kazalarda­vaki­üç­aded­hamamların­vakf-­ı­

mezbure­ kaymakam-­ı­ mütevelî­ olan­ Elhac­ Süleyman­ -zîde­ kadruhû-­ kemâ­ fi’l­

evvel­vakf-­ı­mezbur­için­zabt­u­rabt­ve­müctemi‘­olan­güzeşte­icare­ve­ecr-­i­mis-

illerin­vaz‘-ı­yed­edenlerden­cem‘­ve­tahsil­edip­ashâb-ı­a‘râzın­kadime­muğayir­

hilaf-­ı­ şer‘­ gadr­ ve­ zulm­ ve­ te‘âddîleri­ men‘­ ve­ def‘­ olunup­ edâ­ ve­ teslimde­

ta‘allül­ve­ma‘ânedet­edenler­senedleri­ile­Asitane-­i­saadete­gelip­Divan-­ı­hüma-

yunumda­mütevellî-i­mezbur­ile­mürâfa‘a­ve­ihkâk-ı­hak­olunmak­üzre­mütevellî­

i­ merkumun­ yedine­ müekked­ emr-­i­ şerifim­ verilmek­ vakf-­ı­ mezbur­ mütevellîsi­

Mevlana­Ahmed­-zîde­ilmuhû-­ilam­etmeğin­ilamı­mucebince­amel­olunmak­için­

yazılmışdır.

Ferman­sultanımındar.

Fi­evâsıt-ı­Şevval­sene­1143

Long live the powerful and merciful, his holiness the Sultan The double bathhouse built and endowed by Atik Ibrahim Pasha in Demirhisar was administered and run by people receiving salary from the pious foundation’s incomes of the mosque in Kavala and the imaret, as stated in the endowment. Contrary to the endowment stipulations, Sayyid Ali, who is resident of Demirhisar, says that he bought this bathhouse with a title deed from someone, it became his property in a state of ruins and he restored it. He shows a title deed that doesn’t correspond with the pious foundation statements, since there isn’t any proof in his hand released by the foundation. He has possessed a decree and title deed for ten years, and he didn’t pay the rent of the above-mentioned bathhouse to the stipulated endowment so he has caused the foundation financial loss. Before, he was given an edict that resulted from the controller’s verdict, but he did not obey that order. It is not possible to execute this order because he has bribed others to help and support him. He could not be taken to Istanbul as required in the decree. Since it is not possible to suspend his rights and oppose him for any valid reasons, I would ask the grace of the Sultan. Hereby the previous sentence is also attached. After hearing the judge of Niş who is based in Niş’s council and serves in the area of Niş, part of the Rumelia province; and after registering the bathhouse to the pious foundation and collecting the founda-

tion goods from Sayyid Ali every year, the order belongs to my merciful Sultan

excellency.

From me, Suleyman still acting as Provincial Vice Governor.

Given attachment

It is the decree to the judges of Praveşte, Zihne, and Demirhisar, Ibrahim, through evladiyet (a provision that requires the trustee’s duty to pass from father to son) de jure trustee of the pious foundation of the deceased Atik

148

Appendix

Ibrahim Pasha which is under the supervision of the Grand Vizier, made a request to me. Three double bathhouses in Pravişte, Zihne, and Demirhisar sub provinces registered in this pious foundation’s document, became rubble over time. Some of the hostile villagers who live in these towns have occupied them and have not been paying the rents for more than ten years. It is recorded that when the rents have been requested, they invent false excuses to not pay and say that the bathhouses are their properties, so a decree from the Sultan is requested about this issue. As mentioned above, these bathhouses, which are endowed buildings, are mentioned and recorded in the pious foundation. It has been proved with the report of a trustworthy person that each of these buildings was occupied illegally by a number of prominent and arrogant people disobeying the rules of the pious foundation and they have unjustly deprived the foundation of its rightful income. This is written in order to appoint Elhac Suleyman, the deputy trustee of the pious foundation, to confiscate past rents and fees from these people, and also to prevent and eliminate their injustice and violation of Islamic law; sending these people, who are using lame excuses and avoid paying to the capital city in order to confront the trustee at the Supreme Court; and giving the trustee the corrected decree; and fulfilling the verdict of Mevlana Ahmed, the trustee of the foundation.

The decree belongs to my Sultan.

On April 18–28, 1731

12  Registered in BOA under AE.SMHD.I 85/5744 from April 12, 1735 (Hicri: Za.18.1147) İşbu­ bin­ yüz­ kırk­ yedi­ senesinde­ Medine-­i­ Kavala­ Kalesi’nin­ garb­ tarafında­ liman­ üzerinde­ bi’l-külliye­ münhedim­ ve­ müceddeden­ binâya­ muhtac­ olan­ mahalli­ve­kule-­i­bâlânın­sathında­münhedim­olan­duvar­ve­kule-­i­mezburun­a‘lâ­ tarafında­ kağşayıp­ inhidâma­ mâli­ olan­ mahallerini­ fahrü’l-emâsil­ ve’l-akrâ­ Gulam­ Baki­ Küçük­ Mehmed­ kulları­ mübâşeretiyle­ keşf­ ve­ tahmin-­i­ sahih­ ile­ tahmin­ ve­ takdim­ olunmak­ babında­ emr-­i­ celilü’ş-şan­ sadır­ olmağın­ imtisalen­ leh­bu­fakir­dârü’l-hilâfeti’l-aliyye­Kostantınıyye­el-­mahmiyyede­umdetü’l-emâcid­ve’l-ekârim­Sermimaran-­ı­Hassa­mimarlarından­Süleyman­Halife­ve­husus-­ı­ mezbure­ vukuf­ ve­ şuuru­ olan­ ahalî-i­ vilayet­ marifetleriyle­ mimar-­ı­ mezbur­ mesahasıyla­keşf­ve­mesaha­defteridir­ki­vech-­i­âtî­zikr­olundu. El-­yevmü’s-sâlis­min-­şehr-i­Ramazani’l-mübârek­li-­sene­tis‘a­ve­erba‘în­ve­mie­ ve elf. Mimar­Ağa­mesahası­mucebince­derkenar Ber-muceb-i defter-i müfredât 764130 Be-­hesâb-ı­kuruş­6367,5­kuruş­10­para İşbu­defter­mucebince­hesab­olundukda­altı­bin­üç­yüz­altmış­yedi­buçuk­kuruş­ on­para­eder­ferman­devletli­inayetli­sultanım­hazretlerinindir. Kale-­i­mezbur­limanı­üzerinde­münhedim­ve­binay­muhtac­olan­duvar Tûlen­80­zirâ‘,­kadden­15­zirâ‘,­arzan­3­zirâ‘,­fiyat­120

Appendix 149 Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î 3600­zirâ‘ 432000­kuruş Mahall-i mezburun üzeri hisariçe Tûlen­45­zira‘,­kadden­1,5­zirâ‘,­arzan­1­zirâ‘,­fiyat­120 Terbî‘an­67,5­zirâ 8100­kuruş Harc-­ı­iskele Tûlen­80­zirâ‘,­kadnen­15­zirâ‘,­fiyat­20 Terbî‘an­1200­zirâ‘ 36000­kuruş 18000­kuruş­Enkâz-ı­iskele 18000­kuruş Kale-­i­bâlânın­mertekleri­mahlut­badavrası­cedîd­ve­kiremidi­cedid­sakf Tûlen­26­zirâ‘,­arzan­ma‘a­hevâ­25­zirâ‘,­fiyt­40 Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î­650­zirâ‘ 26000­kuruş Ve­kule-­i­bâlânın­münhedim­olan­duvar­taşı­mahlut Tûlen­25­zirâ‘,­kadden­15­zirâ‘,­arzan­3­zirâ‘,­fiyat­80­kuruş Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î­1125­zirâ‘ 90000­kuruş Ve­ kule-­i­ mezburun­ a‘lâ­ tarafında­ kağşayıp­ inhidâma­ mâil­ olan­ duvarın­ yara­ doldurması­ve­çivileme­ve­derz Tûlen­68­zirâ‘,­kadden­33­zirâ‘,­fiyat­30­kuruş Be-­hesâb-ı­mezbur­1244­zirâ‘ 37320­kuruş Mahall-­i­mezburda­müceddeden­karakolhane­sakf­etrâfı­tuğla­dolma­duvarlı­ve­ tahta­döşemeli Tûlen­4­zirâ‘,­arzan­3­zirâ‘,­fiyat­100­kuruş Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î­12­zirâ‘ 1200­kuruş Ve­kule-­i­bâlânın­derûnunun­evlâsında­tahta­döşeme­mahlut Tûlen­26­zirâ‘,­arzan­20­zirâ‘,­fiyat­50 Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î­530­zirâ‘ 26000­kuruş Mahall-­i­mezburun­etrafında­müceddeden­iki­kat­çerçeveli­dokuz­aded­pençere­ ma‘a­kanat­ve­parmaklık

150

Appendix

Kadden­2­zirâ‘,­pençere­9,­arzan­1,5­zirâ‘,­fiyat­600 Be-­hesâb-ı­terbî‘î­520­zirâ‘ 26000­kuruş Mahall-­i­ mezburun­ etrafında­ müceddeden­ iki­ kat­ çerçeveli­ dört­ aded­ pençere­ ma‘a­kanat­ve­parmaklık 4­adet­pençere,­fiyat­6000 2400­kuruş Ve­ kule-­i­ mezbur­ derununn­ kapısı­ tarafında­ yara­ doldurması­ ve­ meremmât-ı­duvar Kadden­35­zirâ‘,­fi­30 1050­kuruş Ve­kulle-­i­bâlânın­harc-­ı­iskelesi Tûlen­68­zirâ‘,­kadden­33­zirâ‘,­fiyat­30 Terbî‘an­2244­zirâ‘ 67320­kuruş 33660­kuruş­enkâz-ı­iskele-­i­mezbur 33660­kuruş Bahâ-i­küfe­kürek­hammâliye­berâ-yı­nakl-­i­mühimmât­54000­kuruş Hurrire­haze’d-defter­bi-­marifet-i­el-­fakir­ileyhi­azze­şânuhû­Hüseyin­Ennâib­bi-­ medînet­Kavala­-gufira­lehûBaha­764130 Be-­hesâb-ı­kuruş­6367,5­kuruş­20­para Yalnız­altı­bin­üç­yüz­altmış­yedi­buçuk­kuruşdur. Mutâbıkdır. İzzetli­Mimar­ağa Kale-­i­mezburun­işbu­keşf­defteri­mucebince­iktiza­eden­Kereste­ve­sair­lazıme­ ve­ amelesi­ ber-­vech-i­ tahmin­ mübaşiri­ istintak­ edip­ iktizası­ üzre­ keşf­ ve­ defter­ eyleyesin. Binâ-i­ merkuma­ iktiza­ eden­ kereste­ ecnas­ ve­ mesâmîr-i­ mütenevvi‘a­ ve­ kifayet­ mikdarı­amele­beyân­olunur. In 1735, on the western side of Kavala’s fortress, the place above the harbor is completely damaged and needs to be rebuilt, along with the wreckage on the outside of the high tower in the castle and the other loose elements that are about to collapse and the upper parts of this tower. All were checked and reported under the leadership of Gulam Baki Küçük Mehmet. This is the record of the estimate and survey done by Suleyman Halife, one of the imperial architects in Konstantiniye, with the expertise of skilled workers of the province, to fulfill the order of the Sultan on this issue.

Appendix 151 Tuesday, January/February 1737 Attachment according to the survey of Mimar Ağa (chief architect) According to the book of register. 764,130 At the rate of kurush: 6367.5 kurush 10 para According to this record 6367 and a half kurush and ten para, the edict belongs to my excellency the Sultan. The wall above the harbor which is completely destroyed and requires reconstruction. Length 6064 cm, height 1137 cm, width 227.4 cm Square calculation 272,880 cm 43,200 kurush The top of the fortress walls Length 3411 cm, height 113.7 cm, width 75.8 cm, price 120 As square 5116.5 cm 8100 kurush Scaffolding cost Length 6064 cm, height 1137 cm, price 20 As square 90,960 cm 36,000 kurush 18,000 kurush scaffolding dismantle 18,000 kurush The timber of the upper fortress is partially damaged; the wooden ceiling is new as well as the roof tiles. Length 1970.8 cm, width with space 1895 cm, price 40 With square calculation 49,270 cm 26,000 kurush And the wall stones of the destroyed upper tower are also partially damaged Length 1895 cm, height 1137 cm, width 227.4 cm, price 80 kurush With square calculation 85,275 cm 90,000 kurush And, filling, nailing and jointing of the wall on the upper parts of this tower that are loosen and tend to collapse Length 5154.4 cm, height 2501.4 cm, price 30 kurush According to this account 94,295.2 cm 37,320 kurush

152

Appendix

In the mentioned place, rebuilding the guard office’s roof, with brick walls and wooden ceiling Length 303.2 cm, width 227.4 cm, price 100 kurush With square calculation 909.6 cm 1200 kurush And the wooden floor at the entrance of the high tower is also partially damaged Length 1970.8 cm, width 1516 cm, price 50 With square calculation 40,174 cm 26,000 kurush In the side walls of the above-mentioned building, nine double framed windows with casements and window grills Height 151.6 cm, window 9, width 113.7 cm, price 600 With square calculation 39,416 26,000 kurush In the side walls of the above-mentioned building, four double framed windows with casements and window grills again 4 windows, price 6000 2400 kurush On the side of the door inside the tower, slot filling, and wall repair height 2653 cm, price 30 1050 kurush The scaffolding cost for the high tower Length 5154.4 cm, height 2501.4 cm, price 30 As square 17,0095.2 cm 67,320 kurush 33,660 kurush dismantle of this scaffolding 33,660 kurush The cost of bucket, shovel, and wheelbarrow, and transportation of required materials 54,000 kurush This registration is written thanks to – […] – Hüseyin the regent of the town of Kavala Cost 764,130 As the kurush rate 6367.5 kurush 20 para Only 6367 and a half kurush Agreed The great Chief Architect

Appendix 153 According to this record of the mentioned fortress, calculated and registered as required by the examination made by the bailiff on the required timber, other materials, and work force. It is declared that these are the required timber types, various nails, and a sufficient amount of labor necessary for the above-mentioned building.

13  Registered in BOA under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234) Suret-­i­hatt-­ı­hümayun­mehâbet­makrûndur.­İşbu­vakfiye­ma‘mûlün­bihâ­mucebince­amel­olunup­tebdil­ve­tağyirine­mücâseretden­be-­gayet­hazer­oluna. Emmâ­ ba‘d­ ber-­muktezâ-yı­ takdir­ ve­ iradet-­i­ hayy­ ve­ kadîr­ Harameyn-­i­ şerifeyn-i­ muhteremeyne­ ezmine-­i­ kesireden­ beri­ Havâric­ ve­ müşrikîn­ itâle-i­ eydî-i­istilâ­ile­tarika-­i­mesluke-­i­Hicaz­nâ-refte­ve­mesdud­kalıp­tevfiye-­i­fariza-­i­hac­ ve­tediye-­i­levazım-ı­ac­ve­şecc­müddet-i­medîde­menut-­ı­eltaf-­ı­gaybiyye-­i­ilahiyye­iken­hâlâ­revnak­efzâ-yı­taht-­ı­hümayun-ı­baht-­ı­şehriyârî­ve­dihim-­i­efruz-­ı­ saltanat­ve­tacdari­Sultanü’s-selâtîn­ve­hakanü’l-havâkîn­kahramanü’l-mâ­ve’t­ tîn­ zıllullah­ ve­ halîfe-i­ rasûlihî­ fi’l-arzeyn­ Hâdimü’l-Harameyni’ş-şerîfeyen­ kâsımü­ envârü’l-adâletehû­ ve’n-nısfetehû­ ale’l-Arab­ ve’l-Acem­ hâsımü­ zuhûr-ı­ ehli’ş-şirk­ ve’l-bida‘­ ve’l-zulm­ mâlikü­ rikâb-ı­ cemi‘i’n-nâs­ ve’l-ümem­ şevketli­ mehabetli­ kudretli­ azametli­ veliyyü’n-ni‘met-­i­ âlem­ Essultan­ ibnü’s-sultân­ ibnü’s-sultân­ Essultân­ Elgazi­ Mahmud­ Han­ ibn-­i­ Essultan­ Elgazi­ Abdülhamid­ Han­ ibnü’s-sultân­ Elgazi­ Ahmed­ Han­ lâ-zâlet­ suyûf-ı­ satvetehû­ kâtı‘aten­ fî­ ruûs-ı­ ehli’l-bida‘­ ve’l-udvân­ efendimiz­ hazretlerinin­ irâde-i­ kat‘iyye-­i­ hümayun-ı­isabet­makrun-­ı­şâhâneleri­muktezâsınca­kahr­ve­tedmir-­i­eşkiyâ­ve­ infitâh-ı­ tarîk-i­ şürb­ ve­ baty­ hâlâ­ Mısır­ Valisi­ ve­ aktar-­ı­ Hicaziyye­ Seraskeri­ Vezir-­i­meğâzî­semir­ve­müşir-i­Aristo­nazir­el-­mücâhid­fî­sebîlillah­(…)­saadetli­ semahatli­ hamasetli­ şecâ‘atli­ Gazi­ Mehmed­ Ali­ Paşa­ -dâme­ zikruhû-­ bi’l­ mesâ‘i’l-cemile­ ve­ feşâ­ hazretlerinin­ uhde-­i­ Haydari’l-menkıbetlerine­ ihale­ ve­ tefvîz­ buyurulp­ bu­ emr-­i­ hatîrin­ vücuda­ gelmesini­ zâhir­ halde­ dûnehû­ hartü’l­ katâd­ve­müte‘assir­ve­düşvar­iken­bi-­inâyeti’llahi­te‘âlâ­mahz-­ı­himem-­i­şahane­ ve­teveccühât-ı­kerâmât­lüzûmihî­padişâhâneleri­berekatıyla­eshel­vech­üzre­feth­ ve­ teshir­ müyesser­ olup­ müşârun-ileyh­ hazretlerinin­ kıbel-i­ şahaneden­ bazı­ hayrât-ı­ hasenâta­ vakf-­ı­ rabt­ zımnında­ ihsan-­ı­ hümayun­ buyurulan­ (Taşözü­ Ceziresi)­ vatan-­ı­ aslileri­ olan­ medine-­i­ Kavala’da­ vaki­ müceddeden­ inşa­ buyurdukları­ medreseye­ vakf­ ve­ rabt­ murad­ buyurup­ mahrusa-­i­ Mısır’da­ vaki­ kendilere­ mahsus­ saray-­ı­ âlîlerinde­ makud­ meclis-­i­ şer‘-i­ hatir­ ve­ vâcibü’t­ tevkîrde­ li-­ecli’t-tescil­ mütevellî­ nasb­ buyurdukları­ Esseyyid­ Ahmed­ Nazif­ b.­ Esseyyid­Mustafa­mahzarında­şöyle­ifade­ve­meram­buyurmuşlardır­ki, ­ Cezayir-­i­ Bahr-­i­ Sefid’den­ Taşözü­ Ceziresi­ mufassal­ ve­ meşruh­ bir­ kıt‘a­ mülknâme-i­ hümayun-ı­ inayet­ makrun­ nâtık­ olduğu­ üzre­ tarafımıza­ temlik­ ve­ ihsan-­ı­hümayun­buyurulup­mahrusa-­i­Gavala’da­müceddeden­bina­ve­inşasına­

154

Appendix

muvaffak­ olduğum­ altmış­ aded­ oda­ ve­ hucerât­ ve­ bir­ dershaneyi­ müştemil­ bir­ bab­medrese-­i­âliye­ve­fünûn-ı­adîdeyi­müştemil­kütüb-i­şettâdan­ibaret­bir­bab­ kütüphane-i­ radıyyenin­ masarıf-ı­ lâzime-i­ yevmiye­ ve­ seneviyesini­ ifa­ niyyet-­i­ hayriyesiyle­ cezire-­i­ mezburenin­ müştemile­ olduğu­ arazi­ ile­ hasbeten­ lillah­ ve­ taleben­ li-­merzat-i­ ruh-­i­ rasulullah­ vakf-­ı­ sahih-­i­ müebbed­ ve­ habs-­i­ sarih-­i­ müekked­ile­vakf­ve­haps­eyledikden­sonra­şöyle­şart­eyledim­ki, ­ Cezire-­i­ mezburenin­ varidâtından­ hasıl­ olan­ rub‘­ ve­ nemâsından­ yetmiş­ iki­ kise­akçesi­müderris­efendilere­ve­sair­talebi-­i­ulum­ve­mülâzimîne­ve­hademe-­i­ vakf-­ı­şerifin­vezâif­ve­mu‘ayyenâtından­ibaret­olup­bâkî­kalan­fazlası­medrese­ ve­ kütübhânenin­ murur-­ı­ zaman­ ile­ tamir­ ve­ termimine­ iktiza­ eyledikçe­ sarf­ olunmak­ için­ ve­ ba‘de’l-yevm­ bi-­inayetillâhi­ te‘âlâ­ vücuh-ı­ hayrât­ ve­ hasenâta­ tediye­olunmak­için­mütevellî-i­vakf­yedinde­mahfuz­ve­der-­kise­olmak­ve­talebe­ ­i­ ulum­ ve­ mülâzimîne­ talim­ zımnında­ lede’l-imtihan­ ilim­ ve­ fezaili­ zahir­ ve­ fünûn-ı­şettâda­mahir­baş­müderris­ve­sânî­müderris­namı­ile­iki­nefer­efendiler­ müderris­nasb­olup­sabah­ve­ba‘de’l-asr­tefsir-­i­şerif­ve­ehâdîs-i­şerife­ve­fıkh-ı­ şerif­ ve­ sâir­ ulum-­ı­ âliye­ dershanede­ günde­ iki­ defa­ talebe-­i­ ulum­ ve­ sevâkin-i­ medreseye­neşr­ve­talim­eylemek­ve­müderris­efendiye­mâhiye­üç­yüz­kuruş­ve­ sânî­müderris­efendiye­mâhiye­iki­yüz­kuruş­tayin­olunmakla­beher­mah­vekil-­i­ mütevellî­yedinden­ahz­olunmak­ve­baş­müderris­veyahut­sânî­müderris­hulul-­i­ ecel-­i­ mev‘ûdüyle­ bi-­emrillâhi­ te‘âlâ­ âzime-i­ dâr-ı­ bekâ­ oldukda­ bâ-arz-­ı­ mütevellî­ ve­ bâ-işaret-i­ Hazret-­i­ Şeyhü’l-islâmî­ ikinci­ müderris­ efendi­ baş­ müderris­ nasb­ olunup­ mahlul­ kalan­ sânî­ müderrislik­ bir­ mahalden­ ve­ bir­ kimseden­asla­ve­kat‘â­iltizam­ve­rica­ve­şefaat­kabul­olunmayıp­Şeyhülislam­sellemehü’s-selâm­ hazretlerinin­ emr­ ve­ marifetiyle­ ders­ vekilleri­ efendi­ huzurunda­ imtihan­olunup­ilim­ve­fazl­ve­zühd­ve­salah­ve­istihkakı­nümayan­olan­bir­zata­ bâ-arz-­ı­ mütevellî­ ve­ bâ-işaret-i­ hazret-­i­ Şeyhülislâmî­ ikinci­ müderrislik­ tevcih­ buyurulmuş­ve­medresede­sakin­gerek­talebe-­i­ulum­ve­gerek­sair­hademe-­i­vakf­ olanlarlın­cümlesi­üzerine­nâzır­ve­zâbıt­baş­müderris­efendi­olup­rey­ve­hükmü­ cümle­üzerine­nâfiz­olmak­ve­derun-­ı­medrese­talebe-­i­uluma­mahsus­olarak­elli­ aded­oda­ve­mülazımlar­için­on­aded­oda­mecmû‘u­altmış­bab­oda­olmakla­her­ bir­ odad­ ikişer­ nefer­ talib-­i­ ilm­ sakin­ ola­ ve­ mülazım­ odalarında­ dahi­ ikişer­ nefer­ talib-­i­ ilm­ sakin­ olup­ mülâzimîn­ yirmi­ neferi­ tecavüz­ ederse­ dahi­ yine­ kabul­ve­vazifeleri­verilip­yedlerine­mülazemet­tezkiresi­verile.­Ve­mahlul­vukuunda­baş­mülazım­olana­hücresi­vazifisi­tayin­oluna­ve­talebe-­i­ulumn­her­birlerine­mâhiye­on­beşer­kuruş­ve­mülazımlara­her­birine­mâhiye­beşer­kuruş­tayin­ olunmakla­her­ay­başında­mütevellî-i­vakf­vekili­yedinden­tamamen­ve­kamilen­ ahz­oluna.­Ve­talebe­ve­mülâzimînden­ilm-­i­şerif­talimine­meşgul­olmayıp­âhar­ kâr­ve­sanata­meşgul­olanlar­ve­kendi­hevâsına­tâbi‘­olanlar­ihrac­olunup­odası­ ve­mâhiyesi­baş­mülazıma­verile­ve­bilâ-özr-i­şer‘i­odasından­misafir­olanların­ dahi­odaları­ve­vazifeleri­ref‘­ve­yerine­baş­mülazım­îsâl­oluna­ve­lakin­hacc-­ı­ şerif­ ve­ sıla-i­ rahm­ için­ Anadolu­ canibine­ gidenlere­ üç­ mah­ ve­ Tuna­ Yalısı­ tarafına­gidenlere­iki­mah­ve­sevahil-­i­Rumeli’de­yakın­mahallere­gidenlere­otuz­ gün müddet-i muayyene tayin olunup müddet-i muayyenelerin tecavüz eyledikde velev­bir­gün­olsun­derhal­vazifesi­ref‘­ve­odası­baş­mülazıma­verile­ve­müddet-i­ muayyeneleri­ murur­ ile­ vazifesi­ ref‘­ olanlardan­ avdet­ eder­ olup­ tekrar­

Appendix 155 mülazımlık­ ihtiyar­ eder­ olursa­ mülazımlığa­ kabul­ olunmak­ caiz­ ola­ ve­ talebe-­i­ ulum­ beyne’t-tullâb­ maruf­ ve­ mütedâvil­ olan­ şekil­ ve­ kıyâfetde­ ve­ talebe­ zinde­ olup­ rey-­i­ âharda­ olmay­ ve­ tezevvüc­ ve­ teehhül­ murad­ edip­ tezevvüc­ eylediği­ anda­ odadan­ ihrac­ ve­ vazifesi­ ile­ baş­ mülazım­ yerine­ idrâc­ oluna.­ Ve­ mahiye­ ellişer­ kuruş­ vazife­ ile­ ashab-­ı­ liyakatdan­ mezun­ ve­ hüsn-i­ hatt­ sahibi­ bir­ kimesne­ hattat­ tayin­ olunup­ talebeye­ ve­ sâir­ meşk-i­ hat­ murad­ edenlere­ hatt-­ı­ sülüs­ meşk­ ve­ talim­ eyleye.­ Ve­ işbu­ hattat­ olan­ kimesne­ müderris­ efendiler­ ve­ ahalî-i­ medreseden­ olur­ ise­ de­ caiz­ ola.­ Medrese-­i­ mezbureye­ bir­ bevvâb­ ve­ tathîr-i­ müsterâh­ zımnında­ bir­ kennas­ ve­ ferraş­ vücudundan­ lazım­ ve­ lâbüd­ olmağın­ ahali­ medreseden­ bir­ zat­ yevmî­ yirmi­ akçe­ vazife­ ile­ bevvâb­ ve­ yirmi­ akçe­ vazife­ ile­ bir­ zat­ kennas­ ve­ ferraş­ olup­ medrese­ kapısı­ ve­ müsterâh­ ve­ şadırvan­etrafında­îkâd­olunacak­kandiller­için­mâhiye­dört­okka­zeyt­yağı­fazla­ ­i­vakfdan­alınıp­bevvâba­ve­kennâsa­verile­ve­bevvâb­ve­kennâsdan­hizmetinde­ tekâsül­ ve­ hiyanet­ zuhur­ edenlerin­ vazifeleri­ ref‘­ olunup­ âhara­ verile­ ve­ dershane-­i­ mezbure­ cemaatle­ kılınmağa­ mütehammil­ olmakla­ ahalî-i­ medreseden­ ekra’­ve­evra‘­bir­kimesne­yevmi­yirmi­akçe­vazife­ile­imam­ve­diğeri­yevmî­on­ akçe­ ile­ müezzin­ nasb­ olunup­ evkât-ı­ hamsede­ cemâ‘atle­ namaz­ kılına.­ Dershâne-i­ mezbure­ Cuma­ geceleri­ ve­ leyâlî-i­ mübârekede­ îkâd­ olunmak­ için­ mihrab­ taraflarına­ sende­ bir­ def‘a­ sekizer­ okka­ bir­ çift­ kebîr­ şem‘-i­ asel­ vaz‘­ oluna.­Ve­mâhiye­üç­okka­zeyt­yağı­verile­ve­dershanede­her­Cuma­gecesi­yatsı­ namazı­eda­olundukdan­sonra­baş­müderris­efendi­talebe-­i­ulumu­yanına­cem‘­ ile­hatm-­ı­hâcegân­tilavet­ve­cehren­sure-­i­Feth­kırâat­olunup­hasıl­olan­sevâbını­ hâtemü’l-enbiyâ­ve­rasul-­i­kibriyâ­efendimizin­ruh-­ı­latiflerine­ve­âl­ve­ashâb­ve­ eimme-­i­ müctehidîn­ ve­ Hazret-­i­ Şah­ Muhammed­ Bahaeddin­ Nakşibend­ ve­ sair­ hâcegân-ı­ güzîn­ ve­ selâtîn-i­ izâm­ pişine­ ve­ tarik-­i­ Hicaz’da­ vefat­ edenler­ ve­ vâkıf-ı­ müşârun-ileyhin­ ebâ­ ve­ ecdâd­ ve­ ümmehâtının­ ervâh-ı­ şerifelerine­ hibe­ ve­ihdâ­oluna.­Ve­kütübhanede­kütüb-i­nefise-­i­mevkufenin­hıfz­ve­idaresine­baş­ ve­ ikinci­ ve­ birinci­ namıyla­ ashab-­ı­ sadakat­ ve­ emanetle­ üç­ nefer­ kimesneler­ hafız-ı­kütüb­tayin­oluna.­Baş­hafız-ı­kütübe­yevmî­yüz­yirmi­akçe­ve­ikinci­hafız-ı­ kütübe­yevmî­seksen­akçe­ve­birinci­hafız-ı­kütübe­yevmî­altmış­akçe­vazife­tayin­ ve­ tahsis­ oluna.­ Ve­ işbu­ hafız-ı­ kütübler­ müderris­ efendiler­ yahut­ ahalî-i­ medreseden­olurlarsa­da­caiz­ola.­Ve­mahlul­vukuunda­ikinci­hafız-ı­kütüb­baş­ ve­ evvelki­ hafız-ı­ kütüb­ ikinci­ nasb­ olunup­ tertibe­ riayet­ oluna.­ Ve­ kütüb-i­ mezbure­asla­ve­kat‘â­kütübhâneden­taşra­ve­hârice­çıkmayıp­mutalaa­ve­tasfihi­ derun-­ı­kütübhâneye­mahsus­ola.­Ve­her­üç­senede­bir­defa­ve­mahlul­vukuunda­ kitabların­ isimleri­ ve­ mühürleri­ asıl­ deftere­ tatbik­ olunup­ iyâzen­ billâhi­ te‘âlâ­ kitablardan­zâyi‘­zuhur­ederse­hafız-ı­kütüblerden­tazmin­oluna­ve­yevm-­i­Cuma­ ve­yevm-­i­Salı­ve­a‘yâd­ve­emsali­tatil­günlerinden­mâ‘adâ­kütübhâne­sabahdan­ vakt-­i­ asra­ değin­ açılıp­ ashab-­ı­ mutalaa­ müstefid­ ve­ müstefîz­ ola.­ Ve­ işbu­ kitabların­şiraze­ve­mahfaza­kütüblerini­inhâ­ve­takrirleri­ile­derkise­olan­fazla-­i­ vakfdan tamir ve tecdid oluna. ­ Ve­ dahi­ şöyle­ şart­ eylemiştir­ ki­ vakf-­ı­ mezburun­ nazar­ ve­ tevliyetine­ bizzat­ ben­mutasarrıf­olup­azl­ve­nasb­ve­tebdîl­ve­tağyîr­ve­taklîl­ve­teksîr­ve­hazf­ve­ îsâl­ve­ihrâc­ve­idhâl­kendi­yed-­i­irâdetimde­ola.­Velhâsıl­tasarrufât-ı­mezkurede­ ancak­ ben­ münferid­ ve­ müstakil­ ve­ müstenid­ bi’r-rey­ olup­ umuruma­ bir­ kimse­

156

Appendix

müzâhim­ve­mâni‘­ve­münâzi‘­ve­dâfi‘­olmaya.­Ve­benden­sonra­evladımın­zükûr­ ve­inâsdan­ekber­ve­erşedi­tasarrufât-ı­mezkureden­hâli­olarak­mütevellî­olalar. ­ Ve­ ba‘dehû­ evlâd-ı­ evlad-­ı­ evlâd-ı­ evlâdımın­ zükûr­ ve­ inâsından­ ekber­ ve­ erşedi­ batnen­ ba‘de­ batnin­ ve­ neslen­ ba‘de­ neslin­ mütevellî­ olalar.­ Ve­ iyâzen­ billâhi­te‘âlâ­sâha-i­arzı­gubera­ahlâf­ve­a‘kâbdan­tehî­ve­zürriyât-ı­vâsılâtdan­ ârî­ve­berî­olur­ise­nâzır-ı­vakf­olan­Şeyhülislam­hazretlerinin­rey­ve­marifetleriyle­ ashab-­ı­ diyanet­ ve­ sadakatden­ bir­ kimesneye­ tevcih­ buyurula.­ Ve­ murur-­ı­ zaman­ve­tekerrür-i­şuhur­ve­evân­ile­şerâit-i­mezkurenin­tediyesi­müte‘assir­ve­ müte‘azzir­olur­ise­Harameyn­fukarâsına­aid­ola­ve­vakf-­ı­mezbur­bizzat­ve­bi’l­ fi‘l­ Şeyhülislam-ı­ âlî-makam­ bulunan­ zevât-ı­ kiram­ hazerâtının­ zîr-i­ nezaret-­i­ aliyyelerinde­ âsude­ ve­ mahmî­ olup­ tevcîhât-ı­ vezâif­ mütevellî­ bulunanların­ arz­ ve­takrirleri­bâlâsına­işaret-i­aliyyeleri­ile­tahliye­ve­pür­zib­buyuruldukda­kaleminden­berat­ve­senedi­ita­buyurula­ve­her­üç­senede­bir­def‘­a­Şeyhülislam­-sellemehüsselâm-­hazretlerinin­rey­ve­emirleri­ve­müfettiş-i­evkaf­marifetiyle­vakf-­ı­ mezburun­bilcümle­vâridât­ve­âidât­ve­fazla­ve­masarıfâtı­alâ­vechi’l-itkân­hesab­ olunup­mümzî­ve­mahtum­defter-­i­muhasebesi­vakf­sandığında­hıfz­ve­iki­yüz­elli­ kuruş­ muhasebe­ harcı­ olarak­ eda­ ve­ ita­ oluna.­ Deyü­ tayin-­i­ şurut­ ve­ tebyîn-i­ kuyud­ eyleyip­ arazî-i­ mezbure­ ile­ medrese-­i­ merkumeyi­ mahallinde­ mütevellî-i­ mezbure­fâriğan­ani’ş-şevâğil­teslim­ve­ol­dahi­bir­berhetü’n­mine’z-zaman­ve’t­ tesellüm­ ve­ emsali­ gibi­ tasarruf­ eyledi­ buyurduklarında­ gıbbe’t-tasdîki’ş-şer‘î­ vâkıf-ı­müşârun-ileyh­hazretleri­vakf-­ı­akarın­ihtilafına­vâkıf­ve­nizâ‘­hususuna­ ârif­olmalarıyla­pişvâ-yı­müctehidîn­ve­muktedâ-yı­eimme-­i­dîn­İmâm-ı­Azam­ve­ hümâm­ efendim­ Ebu­ Hanifi­ el-­Kufî­ hazretleri­ mezheb-­i­ şerifinde­ eğerçi­ vakf-­ı­ mezbur­sahih­lakin­sıhhati­lüzumdan­ârî­olmakla­rücû‘­eyledim­ve­şâri‘­İmam-ı­ A‘zam’a­ gittim­ dey­ istirdâd­ murad­ buyurduklarında­ mütevelli-i­ mezbur­ dahi­ cevaba­ mütesaddi­ olup­ eğerçi­ hal­ inde’l-imâmi’l-a‘zam­ vâkıf-ı­ müşârun-ileyh­ hazretlerinin­ buyurdukları­ minval­ üzredir.­ Lakin­ Alim-­i­ Rabbânî­ ve­ fazıl-ı­ bî­ müdânî­ İmam­ Yusuf­ el-­müştehir­ ve’l-imâmü’s-sânî­ indlerinde­ sıhhat­ müstelzim­ lüzum­olmakla­teslimden­imtinâ‘­ederim­deyü­hakim-­i­sadr-­ı­kitâb­tûbâ­ve­hüsne­ meâb­ huzurunda­ müterâfi‘ân­ ve­ her­ birleri­ fasl­ ve­ hasme­ tâlibân­ olduklarında­ hükm-i­ müşârun-ileyh­ dahi­ ba‘de’t-teemmül­ vakf-­ı­ mezburun­ alâ­ kavl-­i­ men­ yerâhu­ mine’l-eimmeti’l-müctehidîn­ luzumuna­ dahi­ hükm-i­ sahîh-i­ şer‘î­ ve­ kazâ-i­ sahîh-i­ mer‘î­ eyleyip­ vakf-­ı­ mezbur­ sahih­ ve­ lâzım­ ve­ mütehattim­ olup­ nakz­ve­nakîza­mecâl­muhal­oldu.­Femen­beddelehû­ba‘de­mâ­semi‘ahu­kâimen­ ismuhu­ale’llezine­yübeddilûnehu.­İnnallahe­semî‘un­alim.­Cerâ­zalike­ve­ecre’l­ vâkıf­ ve­ Hurrire­ fi’l-yevmi’l-hâmis­ ve’l-ışrîn­ min­ şehr-i­ Cumâdelâhir­ li-­sene­ semânin­ve­ışrîn­ve­mieteyn­ve­elf. Fi­15­Z­sene­1228 It is a copy of the order written in the Sultan’s own handwriting. It is ordered that the following foundation (vakfiye)’s operations be carried out and that no change be made in the foundation. For a long time with Allah’s will, the Havaric (members of an exterminated Muslim sect) and the polytheists (those who share the idols with God) have tried

Appendix 157 to occupy Harameyn (Mecca and Medina). Those who want to make a pilgrimage duty and visit Medina, because of the Hijaz road being closed due to these attacks cannot fulfill the hajj. The duty of opening the pilgrimage route by destroying this groups of attackers is given by Sultan Mahmut Harameynin’s servant, Arab and Acem’s Sultan and the enemy of kufr (atheists) and shirk (polytheists) to Gazi Mehmet Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt and the Seraglio of the Hijaz Region. Mehmet Ali Pasha easily accomplished this difficult task with the help of God and the support of the Sultan. Due to these successes, Pasha was donated by the Sultan the Taşözü Adası (Thasos Island) for the use of some charity works in the future. They have dedicated their income to the medresa that they had built again in Kavala, the original homeland. Esseyyid Ahmet Nazif b., was appointed as a manager to his foundation in court he had gathered in his own palaces in Egypt. Thasos Island from the Mediterranean islands has been given as a property to Pasha with a separate document. Pasha has devoted himself to earning the approval of God and his prophet in this island to meet the daily and annual expenses of the library consisting of 60 rooms, cells, and a classroom, and various books belonging to different sciences. In other words, he allocated the income from this land to the expenses of the school and the library. This allocation includes the following: One-fourth of the income of this island and the increase of this money (72 money bags with akçe) will belong to teachers, students, trainees, officials, and servants of the school. The remaining foundation incomes will be spent to repair the madrasa and the library. The proceeds will be in the hands of the foundation manager. After the morning prayer Sabah Namazi and after the afternoon prayer ikindi namazi two Tafsir (explanation of the Qur’anic verses), Hadith (prophet Hz. Muhammad’s words and practices), fiqh (Islamic law) and other higher sciences will be taught. The first teacher will get 300 kurush and the second one will get 200 kurush. In the case of the death of the müderrisler (teacher), the second müderris will be appointed as the chief müderris with the sign of Şükhülislam and the wish of the trustee. In the knowledge of Shaykh al-Islam without examining any one of the second professed person who is discharged by his being the first teacher, an exam will be held in the presence of lecturers and the lecturers will be assigned to this work. This supply letter will be written by the administrator of the foundation and will be approved by Şeyhülislam. The responsibility of the students and other foundation staff will be on the first teacher. The opinions and provisions of the teacher will be binding to all of them. 50 rooms belonging to the students and 10 of the institutes (internship teacher, teacher candidates). There will be two students in each room. Even if the number of trainees exceeds 22, they will be admitted to the traineeship. When these internships are vacated, the head trainee will be given his room. The students will be paid 15 kurush per month, and the interns will be given five kurush. The pensions will be taken at the beginning of every month by the administrator of the trustee. Students and trainees who are engaged in other artistic endeavors or personal interests will be removed from the school and their chief chamber and pension will be given to the junior grade student. If a guest is

158

Appendix

taken at the rooms without any legal excuse the salaries will be taken from the room. The place is going to be taken by the chief junior student. However, visits to Hajj, the Anatolian side, visits to the Tuna Mansion and visits to the Rumeli Coast will be allowed for 30 days. If there is an excess of even one day detected the room will be taken and given to the chief lieutenant. The students will be able to take the internship again after they have been determined by passing through the appointed times outside. […] The students who want to marry will be removed from the room when they are married and the room will be given a head mulazim (lieutenant).A person who knows the fine writing, those who are skilled with the monthly pledge will be appointed as a calligrapher and teach the thuluth line (writing) to the students who want to write the other line If the calligrapher is from the school’s coaches or other officials of the school, it will be accepted. The school will be assigned a sweeper to clean the toilets and a gate keeper. One person of the school will be assigned to manage as a concierge with 20 akçe duties per day and one person as a sweeper with 20 akçe duties. For the school gates, toilets and candles burned around the fountain, four kilos of olive oil per month will be taken from the foundations and will be given to the doorman and the sweeper. Those sweepers and gatekeepers who are lazy in their duties and those who are treacherous in their duties will be replaced by others. Those who read the best in the school community and who are afraid of Allah will be imam with 20 akçe duties per day and the others will be assigned as muezzin with ten akçe duties per day. Thus, five times a day will be prayer with the community (jammat-meaning together). On the Friday and on the holy nights will be placed a couple of large honey waxes (eight pounds) in the evening on the side of the mihrab (place where the imam prayed) to be buried. Three pounds of olive oil per month will be given. After the prayer of yatsi on Thursday the chief teacher will get all the students aside and will read Qur’an and all the spiritual gaining will be presented to the prophet Muhammed, his family, his friends, great Islamic scholars, Shah Muhammad Bahaeddin, the founder of the Nakshibendi sect, and others of the order. In the same way, those who died on the way to the pilgrimage will be presented to the spirits of their past from the founder of this foundation. Three books of the first, second, and third names will be assigned to the library for the preservation and maintenance of the beautiful books that have been found in the library. Daily compensation for the chief librarian will be 120 akçe. When there are going to be reorganizations the second librarian will be appointed as the first librarian and the first librarian will be appointed as the second librarian. The books will never be taken out of the library and will only be read and examined in the library. Once in three years or when the mission is vacated, the names and seals of the books and will be compensated by the librarians if it is clear that the books are lost or there is damage in the books. On Fridays, Tuesdays, holidays, and other holidays, the library will be open from morning to afternoon. The repairs of books and book covers as well as the boxes for protection and transport of the writing instruments will be covered by the foundation.

Appendix 159 Again the founder of the foundation stipulated that: The administration of the foundation will be eliminated, the changes to be made about the foundation, and the increase and reduction of the foundation will belong to me. That is to say, the founder will be the sole owner of the foundation. After him, this management will belong to the greatest of the boys and girls and the most worthy of it. This generation will pass through generations. If the descendants of the guardian of the God-Guardian are cut off, this will be given to a person who is loyal and loyal to Shaykhulism. If it becomes difficult to meet these conditions with the passage of months and years, the foundation will belong to the poor of Harameyn (Mecca and Medina). This foundation will be protected under the management of the people of the Sheikhulislamas themselves. The granting of the duties of the foundation will be on the writings of the foundation directors, After that, berat and pen will be given from the relevant pen and all income, dues, expenses and surplus of the foundation will be calculated once in three years within the frame of Şeyhülislam’s views and the knowledge of the foundation inspector. The sealed seal and signed book will be kept in the foundation depository. Two hundred and fifty akçe will be paid for accounting. Here the founder of the foundation stipulated these and handed over the land in Thassos and the manager at the school site. The trustee will take over the task and manage it like any other. In this way, it was determined that the founding foundation is suitable for the opinions of religious scholars related to the foundation issue and it is determined that it is a solid foundation and the registration was made. Moreover, after this, whoever disintegrates or changes this foundation, the registration of the foundation has been completed, indicating that it will be his sin. Is 25.Cemaziyelah. 1228 [June 25, 1813] The second vakfiye. At the beginning of it a long prayer sentence was written. Binâen­alâ­zâlike­işbu­sebt-­i­zeyl­olunan­mücelled­ve­müzeyyen­ve­müveşşah­ve­ muanven­ vakfiye-­i­ mamülün­ bihâ­ ve­ mamülün­ aleyhâ­ derununda­ zikr­ ve­ beyan­ ve­tafsil­vi­iyan­kılınan­evkaf-­ı­celile­ve­müberrât-ı­cemilenin­bi-­tevfiki’s-sübhânî­ ve­inayet-­i­feyz-­i­Yezdânî­bundan­akdem­tertib­ve­tescil­ve­ihyasına­bais­ve­işbu­ kitabü­ celili’ş-şân­ ve­ bu­ hitab-­ı­ bedî‘ü’l-ünvânın­ tahrir­ ve­ inşa­ ve­ tasdir­ ve­ imlasına­bâdî­olan­sâhibü’l-hayrât­ve’l-hasenât­ve­ragıbü’s-sadakât­ve’l-müberrât­hâlâ­Mısır­Valisi­ve­mukaddema­Hicaz­Seraskeri­vezir-­i­ruşen­zamir­müşir-i­ müşteri­tedbir­ahter­burc-­ı­rif‘at­ve­ikbal­mühr-i­sipihr­haşmet­ve­iclal-­i­celilü’l­ kadr­ ve’l-mekan­ müşârun-ileyh­ bi’l-benan­ el-­mücâhid­ fî­ sebilillah­ devletli­ kerametli­atufetli­Gazi­Elhac­Mehmed­Ali­Paşa­sehhelellâhü­te‘âlâ­aleyhi­mân­ nevâhu­ mine’l-hayrâ’­ ve­ mâ­ yeşâ’­ ve­ istirdâdihî­ şeref-i­ vekaletleriyle­ müşerref­ olduğu­mefharü­erbâbi’t-tahrir­ve’l-kalem­mecme‘ü’l-maârif­ve’r-rakam­müşir-i­ müşarun-ileyh­ hazretlerinin­ Divan-­ı­ bediü’l-unvan­ katibleri­ Elhac­ İbrahim­ Efendi­ ibn-­i­ Mehmed­ ve­ fahrü’l-akran­ ve’l-emsal­ Kahire-­i­ mezbure­ mimarlarından­ Mehmed­ Emin­ Ağa­ ibn-­i­ Halil­ şehadetleriyle­ sabit­ ve­ sübut-ı­ vekâletine­hükm-i­şer‘î­lahık­olan­muteberân-ı­rical-­i­devlet-­i­aliyyeden­umdetü­

160

Appendix

erbâbü’t-tahrir­ve’l-maârif­ve’l-kalem­zîdehû­ashabü’t-tastir­ve’l-mehâsin­ve’r­ rakam­ ve­ mecma‘ü’l-ahlâki’l-hasene­ ve’n-nesîm­ saadetli­ necabetli­ Mehmed­ Necib­ ibn-­i­ Abdülmennan’ın­ dârüssaltanati’l-aliyye-­i­ Kostantınıyyeti’l­ mahmiyye­hummiyet­ani’l-âfât­ve’l-beliyyede­Tavşantaş­nam­mahalde­vaki­saadethânelerinde­ zeyl-­i­ kitab­ meşkin­ nisab-­ı­ müstetâbda­ unvan­ ve­ esâmîleri­ muharrer­ zevat-­ı­ kiram­ huzurlarında­ akd­ olunan­ Divan­ şer‘-i­ celil­ şâmihü’l­ imâd-ı­ahmedî­ve­eyvân-ı­dîn-i­lâzimü’t-tebcil­râsihü’l-evtâd-ı­Muhammedî­sallallâhü­ te‘âlâ­ alâ­ şâri‘ada­ ve­ kazâ-i­ şerif-i­ meymenet­ rediflerine­ li-­ecli’t-tescîl­ ve’l-itmâm­emrü’l-vakf­ve’t-tekmil­mütevellî­nasb­ve­tayin­buyurdukları­umdetü­ ashâbi’l-iz­ ve’l-ihtirâm­ Salih­ Efendi­ ibn-­i­ İlyas­ mahzarında­ bi’l-vekâle­ takrir­ lâli’n-nizam­ ve­ tefsir-­i­ mâni’z-zamir­ ile­ itmam-­ı­ meram-­ı­ hayrü’l-encam­ edip­ müvekkilim­vezir-­i­müşârun-ileyh­tefik­elbise­Allahü­te‘âlâ­libâsi’l-kerâmeti­ve’t­ tevfîk­ hazretleri­ vakta­ ki­ Cenâb-ı­ Rabbü’l-erbâb­ cellet­ azametehû­ ve­ ammet­ âlâuhû­ kendilere­ ihsan­ ve­ inayet­ eylediği­ ni‘am-­i­ celile­ ve­ minnet-­i­ cezîleyi­ kemal-i tenbih üzre mülahaz buyurup mâ indeküm yenfüzü ve mâ indallahi bâkin nazm-­ı­ keriminin­ medlül-i­ şerifi­ ve­ yevme­ tecidü­ külli­ nefsin­ mâ­ amilet­ min­ hayrin­muhdaran­kavl-­i­latifinin­mazmun-­ı­münifi­bi-­lutfillâhi­te‘âlâ­ve­keremihî­ tab‘-ı­Çalak­seriü’l-idrâklerine­münsak­olup­bi-­tahsil-i­meratib-­i­aliyye­ve­tekmil-­i­derecât-ı­sâmiye-i­uhreviyye­etmeye­ihtimam-­ı­tam­etmek­ehemm-­i­âmme-i­ mehâm­ ve­ elzem-­i­ kâffe-i­ enâm­ olduğuna­ vâkıf­ oldukları­ müstağnî-i­ ani’l­ beyândır.­Binâen­ala­zalike­nesâyih­hükm-i­ilâhiyye­ile­mütenassıh­olup­kemal-­i­ kerem­Rahmâî­ve­inayet-­i­Rabbânî­teksir-­i­hayrât­ve­tevfir-­i­müberrât­ehemm-­i­ himmetleri­ olmağın­ vakf-­ı­ câi’z-zikrin­ suduruna­ değin­ vakıf-ı­ müşârun-ileyh­ esbağallâhü­ ni‘amehû­ aleyhi­ hazretlerinin­ bâ-senedât-ı­ şer‘iyye­ sâlik-i­ mülk-i­ sahihlerinde­ münselik­ ve­ mürtebit­ ve­ uhde-­i­ tasarruflarında­ mütekarrer­ ve­ münzabıt­ olup­ vilayet-­i­ Rumeli’de­ Mahrusa-­i­ Kavala­ kasabasında­ ber-­muceb-i­ vakfiye-­i­ mevsufe-­i­ mezkure­ mukaddemâ­ bi-­tevfikillah­ lâze­ sivâhü­ müceddeden­ bina­ ve­ inşa­ birle­ vakf­ ve­ haps­ ve­ tesciline­ nail­ oldukları­ medrese-­i­ celile­ ve­ kütüphaneleri­ civarında­ Kuran-­ı­ kerim­ ve­ furkan-­ı­ azimi­ etfâl-i­ müslimîn­ talim­ ve­tertil­evlad-­ı­muvahhidîn­için­bu­evan-­ı­meymenet­ünvanda­esas-­ı­sengin­ve­ binası­ rengin­ müceddeden­ bina­ ve­ ihya­ ve­ inşa­ buyurdukları­ müştemilât-ı­ malumeyi­havi­bir­bab­mekteb-­i­şerif-i­ra‘nâlârını­bi-­cümletihî­mâ­yeştemiluhû­ ve­ yahvîhi­ hasbeten­ lillahi’l-ahed­ ve­ taleben­ li-­merzâti’r-Rabbi’s-Samed­ vakf-­ı­ sahih-­i­şer‘i­muhallede­ve­haps-­i­sarih-­i­mer‘î­müebbed­ile­vakf­ve­haps­ve­vakf-­ı­ sâlifü’l-vasıflarına­zam­ve­ilhak­ve­idrâc­ve­ilsâk­buyurup­şerâit-i­vezâif­ve­zavâbit-i­masarıf­ve­sair­şurut-ı­riayet-­i­meşrutunu­işbu­vech-­i­vecîh­üzre­ihtiyar­ve­ tayin­ve­bu­nüsk-i­evfak­ile­tafsil­ve­tebyîn­buyurdular­ki, ­ Bâlâsa­mübarek­hatt-­ı­şerif-i­meymenet­redif-­i­şahane­ile­müveşşah­yedlerine­ ihsan­ buyurulan­ bir­ kıta­ Mülknâme-i­ hümayun­ mucebince­ ba‘de’t-temellüki’s­ sahih­ vakfiye-­i­ mevsufe-­i­ mezkurede­ tafsil­ kılındığı­ üzere­ vakıflarından­ olan­ Cezayir-­i­ Bahr-­i­ Sefid’de­ Taşözü­ Ceziresi­ mukataası­ arazisinin­ aşar-ı­ şer‘iyye­ ve­ vâridât-ı­ kadime-­i­ tayyibesinden­ hasıl­ olan­ rub‘­ ve­ gallâtından­ mekteb-­i­ mezkura­muallim-­i­sıbyân­olan­zât-ı­âlî­kadre­beher­yevm­yüz­yirmi­akçe­vazife­ ve­ senevî­ yüz­ kuruş­ ferace­ baha­ verilen­ ve­ mekteb-­i­ merkumda­ baş­ halife­ bulunan­zata­yevmi­altmış­akçe­vazife­ve­senevî­altmış­kuruş­ferace­baha­verilen­

Appendix 161 ve­ ikinci­ halife­ bulunan­ zata­ yevmî­ kırk­ akçe­ vazife­ ve­ senevî­ elli­ kuruş­ ferace­ verile.­Ve­mekteb-­i­mezkurda­müte‘allimîn­olan­elli­nefer­sıbyandan­her­birine­ şehriye­ üçer­ kuruş­ verile­ ve­ mülazım­ olan­ yirmi­ nefer­ sıbyânın­ beher­ birine­ şehriye­altmış­para­verile­ve­beher­sene­mevsim-­i­baharda­sıbyan-ı­mezkurdan­ mesireye­ gittiklerinde­ seyr­ baha­ olarak­ yüz­ kuruş­ harc­ ve­ sarf­ oluna­ ve­ vakt-­i­ şitada­mekteb-­i­mezkurda­yüz­kuruşluk­hatab­iştirâ­oluna.­Ve­beher­sene­şehr-i­ Ramazani’l-mübarekin­ yirmi­ yedinci­ Kadir­ Gecesi­ olıcak­ yevm-­i­ mübârekde­ mârru’l-beyân­elli­nefer­sıbyandan­her­birine­kapama­olarak­birer­alaca­entari­ ve­ birir­ cebe­ birer­ dizlik­ ve­ birir­ fes­ ve­ bir­ koşuk­ ve­ birer­ baş­ yemenisi­ verir­ ayak­ yemenileri­ verilip­ ilbas­ ve­ ikram­ oluna.­ Ve­ mekteb-­i­ mezkurede­ olan­ sıbyânâna­hâfızü’l-Kurani’l-kerim­olanlar­taltif­ve­ikram­ve­sâirlerine­terğîb­ve­ ibram­zımnında­bir­kat­libas­ile­nakden­elli­kuruş­verile­ve­mekteb-­i­mezkurun­ tamir­ve­termim­ve­lede’l-iktizâ­tecdîdi­ve­derununa­ferş­için­kaliçe­ve­hasırları­ gallât-ı­vakf­mezkurlarından­harc­ve­sarf­birle­tanzim­oluna­ve­ber-­muceb-i­vakfiye-­i­ mezkure­ mukaddemâ­ vakf­ ve­ tescil­ eyledikleri­ hayrat-­ı­ mezkurelerinin­ şurût­ve­kuyudunun­tebdil­ve­tağyiri­ve­taklil­ve­teksiri­merraten­ba‘de’l-ûlâ­ve­ kerraten­ ibbe­ uhrâ­ yed-­i­ meşiyyetlerinde­ olmakla­ dershanede­ imam­ olan­ zat-­ı­ şerifin­ vazifesi­ kalîl­ olduğundan­ mukaddemâ­ tayin­ olunan­ yevmi­ yirmi­ akçe­ vazifesi­üzerine­beher­yevm­kırk­akçe­dahi­zam­ve­ilave­birle­yevmî­altmış­akçeye­ iblâğ­oluna.­Ve­müezzin­olan­efendinin­yevmî­on­akçe­vazifesi­üzerine­otuz­akçe­ zam­olunup­yevmî­kırk­akçeye­iblağ­oluna.­Ve­bevvâb-ı­medresenin­vazifesi­olan­ yirmi­ akçe­ üzerine­ dershane-­i­ mezkurede­ kayyımlık­ hizmetini­ mukabelesinde­ yirmi­akçe­dahi­zam­olunup­beher­yevm­kırk­akçe­ola­ve­dershane-­i­mezkurede­ îkâd-ı­ kanadil­ için­ üç­ vakıyye­ ve­ medrese­ avlusunda­ ve­ medresede­ îkâd­ için­ beher­ şehr­ dört­ vakiyye­ revgan-­ı­ zeyt­ verile­ deyü­ mukaddemâ­ şehriye­ cem‘an­ yedi­vakiyye­revgan-­ı­zeyt­tayin­olunmuş­olup­lakin­ol­mikdar­revgan-­ı­zeyt­vefâ­ etmemekle­ şehriye­ sekiz­ vakiyye­ revgan-­ı­ zeyt­ dahi­ iştirâ­ olunup­ cem‘an­ beher­ mah­ on­ beş­ vakiyye­ revgan­ ita­ oluna­ ve­ dershane-­i­ merkumda­ mihrab-­ı­ şerif­ tarafeyninde­dört­aded­şamdanlarda­îkâd­için­şehriye­üç­vakiyye­şem‘-i­revgan­ iştirâ­ve­kayyum-­ı­merkuma­ita­oluna­ve­işbu­vakf-­ı­mülhak­mezkurlarının­dahi­ bilcümle­ şurut­ ve­ kuyudunun­ tebdil­ ve­ tağyir­ ve­ teksir­ ve­ idhal­ ve­ ihracı­ merraten­ba‘de­ûlâ­ve­kerraten­gıbbe­uhrâ­kemâ­kan­yed-­i­mübarek­meşiyyet-i­saadetlerinde­ola­murur-­ı­eyyam­ve­duhur­ve­kurur-­ı­a‘vâm­ve­şuhur­ile­işbu­şurut­ ve­ kuyuda­ riayet­ müte‘azzire­ olur­ ise­ gallât-ı­ mezkure­ mutlaka­ fukarâ-yı­ müslimîne­ harc­ ve­ sarf­ oluna­ deyü­ tayin-­i­ şerâyit­ ve­ kuyud­ ve­ tebyin-­i­ zevâbıt­ ve­ ukud­ birle­ mekteb-­i­ mezkuru­ ma‘a­ müştemilâtihî­ mütevellî-i­ mumâ-ileyhe­ bundan­akdem­mahallinde­vech-­i­layıkı­üzre­fâriğan­ani’ş-şevâğıl­def‘­ve­teslim­ ve­ ol­ dahi­ ber-­vech-i­ muharrer­ tesellüm­ ve­ kabul­ ve­ sair­ mütevellîler­ evkafda­ tasarruf­eyledikleri­misillü­zabt­ve­tasarruf­eyledi­deyü­bi’l-vekâle­hatm-­i­kelam­ ve­itmam-­ı­meram­etmeğin­gıbbe’t-tasdiki’ş-şer‘î­vekil-­i­mûmâ-ileyh­enamallâhü­ aleyhi­Mehmed­Necib­Efendi­müvekkil-i­vezir-­i­vâkıf-ı­zi’l-avarıf­ve’l-atâ­zâdellâhü­ömrehû­ve­devletehû­bi’s-sa‘âde­ve’s-safa­hazretlerinin­vakf-­ı­mezkurlarını­ ahkam­ ve­ şurut­ ve­ kuyudunu­ istihkam­ kasdıyla­ inân-ı­ kelam-­ı­ hayr­ encamını­ canib-­i­vifakdan­semt-­i­şikaka­atf­ve­zimam-­ı­makalini­savb-­ı­istirdâda­sarf­edip­ müvekkilim­ vâkıf­ vezir­ ve­ kerimü’l-hısâl­ ce‘alallâhü­ te‘âlâ­ aşre­ hasenâtihî­

162

Appendix

aşra’l-emsâl­hazretleri­ihtilâfât-ı­eimme-­i­kirama­ârif­olmalarıyla­vakf-­ı­mevsuf-­ı­ mezkurlarının­ sıhhat­ ve­ lüzumunu­ iltizam­ buyurmayan­ eimme-­i­ izâm­ ve­ meşâyih-i­ kiram­ hazretlerinin­ kavl-­i­ latiflerine­ müteşebbisen­ vakf-­ı­ mezkurlarından­ rücû‘­ ve­ kemâ­ kan­ mülklerine­ istirdad­ muradımdır­ deyü­ bi’l­ vekale­ davaya­ âzım­ ve­ nizâ‘a­ câzim­ oldukda­ mütevellî-i­ reşid­ cevab-­ı­ sedide­ tesaddî­edip­vakf-­ı­mezkurun­sıhhat­ve­lüzumunu­iltizam­buyuran­eimme-­i­kirâm­ ve­fukahâ-i­zevi’l-ihtiram­-rahimehümâllâhü’l-meliki’l-azizi’l-allâm-­hazeratının­ rey-­i­ münir-i­ isabet­ karinlerine­ mütemessiken­ red­ ve­ teslimden­ ebâ­ ve­ imtinâ‘­ birle­ i‘lâ-yı­ kitabı­ ve­ bâlâ-yı­ hitab-­ı­ müstetâbı­ hat­ ve­ imzalarıyla­ tevşîh­ eden­ hâkimü’l-ecnâb­ ve­ fakkahallâhü­ te‘âlâ­ li’s-sedâd­ fi­ ahkâm­ ve’l-hitâb­ efendi­ hazretleri­huzurunda­kemâ­hüve’l-mastur­fi’l-kütübi’l-fikhıyye­müterâfi‘ân­ve­her­ biri­fasl­ve­hasme­tâlibân­olduklarında­hâkim-i­müşârun-ileyh­lâ-zâle­hükmuhû­ elhakku­câriyen­beyne­yedeyhi­tarafeynin­kelâmına­nazar­ve­mennâ‘ü’n-lilhayr­ olmakdan­hazer­edip­temhîd-i­kavâ‘id­hayri­evlâ­ve­teşyîd-i­mebânî­ve­müberrâtı­ uhrâ­ görüp­ âlimen­ bi’l-hilâf­ beyne’l-eimmeti’l-eslâf­ ve’l-ecelleti’l-eşraf­ ve­ mürâ‘iyen­limâ­yecîbü­riayeten­fi’t-tescili’l-evkaf­alâ­kavl-­i­men­yesûğ­ve­yerâhu­ vakf-­ı­mezkurun­evvelâ­sıhhatine­ve­sâniyen­el-­vakfü­izâ­saluha­lezime­mukaddimesi­üzre­lüzumuna­hükm-i­sahih-­i­şer‘î­ve­kazâ-i­sarih-­i­mer‘î­etmeğin­min­ba‘d­ vakf-­ı­ mezkura­ sahih­ ve­ lazım­ ve­ haps-­i­ sarih­ ve­ mütehattim­ olup­ naks­ ve­ nakîsına­ ve­ mecâl­ ve­ muhâl­ ve­ tebdil­ ve­ tağyîri­ adîmü’l-ihtimal­ oldu.­ Femen­ beddelehû­ ba‘de­ mâ­ semi‘ahû­ fe-­innemâ­ ismuhû­ alellezine­ yübeddilûnehû.­ İnnallâhe­ hüve’s-semî‘ü’l-alîm­ ve­ ecra’l-vakıf­ ale’l-hayyi’l-cevâdi’l-kerim.­ İnnehû­hüve’l-birrü’r-Rahîm­cerâ­zâlike­ve­harrarahû­kezâlike­fi’l-yevmi’l-hâdî­ aşarmin­şehr-i­Rebiülâhir­li-­sene­isneyt­ve­selâsîn­ve­mieteyn­ve­elf­min­hicretin­ men­lehü’l-izzü­ve’l-mecdü­ve’s-saâdetü­ve’l-kemal­ve’ş-şeref. ­ Şuhûdü’l-hâl:­Mehmed­Said­Ağa­ibn-­i­Ali,­Mefharü’l-eşbâh­Abdülkadir­Ağa­ ibn-­i­ Mustafa,­ Umdetü’s-sulehâ­ ve’s-sâlikîn­ Derviş­ İsmali­ ibn-­i­ Emrullah,­ Fahrü’s-sâdât­ve’l-eşraf­Esseyyid­Ömer­Efendi­ibn-­i­Esseyyid­Ahmed,­Hâccü’lHarameyni’ş-şerîfeyn­es-­sâ‘în­beyne’s-Safâ­ve’l-Merveteyn,­ve­Kıdvetü’l-huffâz­ ve­Kârî­Elhac­Hafız­Mustafa­Efendi­ibn-­i­Ali,­Kadızâde­Esseyyid­Mehmed­Ağa­ ibn-­i­Ahmed­Mustafa­b.­Salih,­Hüseyin­Ağa­b.­Mustafa,­Eşraf-ı­kuzât-ı­kirâmdan­ sâbıkâ­Serlevha-­i­Yesar­Abdullah­Vahîd­Efendi­ibn-­i­el-­merhum­Hasan,­müsevvidü­hâze’l-kitâbi’l-müstetâb­ketebehû­el-­fakîr­Mustafa­Vasıf­Türbe­dâr-ı­cennet­ ­mekân­Abdülhamid­Han­an­hulefâ-i­Muhammed­Vasfi­el-­maruf­bi-­hâfızi’l-Kurân­ kâtibü’s-sarayi’s-sultânî­fi­Galata. Temmet.

Kaleminden tatbik oluna.

Sadır­olan­ferman-­ı­şeriflerine­imtisalen­vâkıf-ı­müşârun-ileyh­hazretlerinin­fi­25­

Cumadelâhir­sene­1228­ve­fi­11­Rebiülâhir­sene­1232­tarihleriyle­müverrah­ve­

sene-­i­ mezbure­ fi­ 25­ Cumadelûlâ­ sene-­i­ m.­ günü­ bâ-fermân-ı­ âlî­ Anadolu­

Muhasebesi’ne­kayd­olunan­iki­kıt‘a­vakfiye-­i­mamulün­bihâlarıyla­işbu­suret-­i­

vakfiyelere­ tatbik­ olunarak­ mukabele­ olundukda­ asıl­ vakfiyelere­ mutabık­ ve­

sahih­ olduğu­ malum-­ı­ devletleri­ buyuruldukda­ emr­ u­ ferman­ devletli­ saadetli­

sultanım­hazretlerinindir.

Fi­24­C­sene­1234

Appendix 163 This charity which has been registered in the foundation and the charitable foundation which has been declared in the foundation and the charitable owner which causes the writing of the good charities is now the Governor of Egypt and the former Hijaz Seraskeri (Commander) Gazi Elhac Mehmet Ali Pasha’s Divan Katih Elhac İbrahim Efendi and Mehmet Emin Ağa b. Mehmet Necib ibn-i Abdulmennan, who is the representative of Halil’s witnesses, has gathered a divan in front of the people whose names are mentioned below in their houses in Tavşantan named places in Istanbul. In this council (court), the work of founding the foundation has been completed and the trustee (administrator) appointee Salih Efendi b. Elijah Pasha referred to the following matters by proxy. He said that his client established this foundation to win the happiness of God and the happiness of the Hereafter, knowing that the world is temporary and the last is the Hereafter. He stated that he made such a decision by taking counsel from the Qur’anic verses about doing good deeds and preparing for the Hereafter. The foundation owner has devoted himself as a real foundation for God’s resurrection as it is in the town of Kavala in Rumelia, where he has a number of mosques with various sections he has built to teach the Qur’an to Muslim children around the schools and libraries he has already built in his real property, The officers of this foundation explained the expenditures and other conditions that must be obeyed as follows: According to the Sultan’s handwritten manuscript, which was given to the Pasha, he used it as property. As explained in detail at the foundation, the land of the Thasos Island from the Mediterranean islands, one of the foundations of the Pasha, was allocated to the duties of the land rentals, one (one tax) and one-fourth and the other income from the former income. The person who is the teacher to the children in the school will be given 120 akçe, that is, 100 kurush annually. Again, the teacher will be given the ferace (clothing) money. The person who is the chief caliph in the school will be given 60 akçe salary and 60 kurush for clothing ferace. The second halifeye will be given 40 akçe per day and 50 kurush per year. Each of the 50 children in school will receive three kurush a month. Each of the 20 children who are in mulazim (lieutenant) will be given 60 akçe worth of money. Every year during the spring season when the children go to the ranch, a hundred cent will be spent on the road. In the winter, a hundred kurush of wood will be purchased. Every year, at the blessed Kadir Night, which is the twenty-seventh night of the Mubarak Ramadan month, every one of these 50 children is covered with a pair of clothes (one quality cloth), one robe, one knee, one fez, they are dressed fully. The children in school will be given 50 kurush in cash and one coat in order to reward those who have memorized Qur’an (i.e. those who know the Qur’an by heart), in order to make attractive the memorization of Qur’an to others. Small carpets and mats will also be provided from the foundation’s incomes to repair the school and renovate it if necessary. It is in his possession that the conditions of the foundations that Pashan had previously established and registered had been changed, reduced, and reproduced. The person who is the imam in the school as previously determined is getting 20 akçe per day, which is already determined. Since this is a low wage an increase of 40 akçe will be added and he

164

Appendix

will get 60 akçe per day. The Muezzin’s salary was 10 akçe per day and he will get an increase of 30 akçe and in total he will get 40 akçe per day. The person who is serving as a maid is going to make a 20 akçe increase and make 40 akçe every day because he has made an appointment in the classroom. Three kilos to burn candles in the dershane, 400 kilograms of olive oil will be given each month to burn in the medrese courtyard and the medrese. Seven kilograms of olive oil cannot be determined, so eight more kilograms of olive oil per month will be taken and 15 kilograms of olive oil will be given for each month. To be used in the four candlesticks located on the sides of the mihrab of dershane, three kilos of candle will be purchased monthly. All powers related to these contributions made by foundation will be at the foundation. If it becomes difficult to obey these conditions over time, the incomes of the foundation will definitely be spent on the Muslims. All of these conditions, depending on the conditions determined by the manager has delivered to the manager. He took it. The other foundation managers agreed that the foundation would manage it. So, he ended his speech. Pashan’s deputy Mehmet Necib Efendi stated that he was aware of the differences between the scholars concerned with the issue (i.e. establishing a foundation) and the scholars of the foundation, in order to consolidate the terms and records of the foundation. The foundation has responded to the argument that the foundation will end the debate when it enters the case, saying that I would like to withdraw from the foundation and take back its properties in accordance with the views of the unscientific scholars. The foundation has not handed over the foundation by suggesting the views of the Islamic jurists and imams expressing that the foundation is necessary and authentic. In the confrontation of the parties, the judge has listened to both parties and decided not to approve such a good job and decided to continue the foundation. This was the meeting that took place. 11 Rebiul evvel 1232 [February 28, 1819]

14  Registered in BOA under İ.MVL 82/1637, p. 1 and p. 2 from October 6, 1846 (Hicri: L.14.1262) Malum-­ı­âlî-i­âsifâneleri­buyurulduğu­üzre­Kavala­Kalesi­harab­olarak­tamir­ve­ termimi­ istida­ ve­ ihtar­ kılınmış­ olduğundan­ keyfiyet­ muktezâ-yı­ irade-­i­ seniyye­ vecihle­ lede’l-mutâla‘a­ vâkı‘a­ suret-­i­ inhâ­ ve­ istidâya­ nazaran­ kale-­i­ merkume­ muhtac-­ı­ tamir­ olup­ sâye-i­ şevket-vâye-i­ hazret-­i­ cihanbânîde­ taraf-­ı­ saltanat-­ı­ seniyyeden­ icrâ-yı­ termim­ ve­ tahkimi­ icab-­ı­ hal­ ve­ maslahatdan­ olmakla­ Tophane-­i­Amire­Müşiri­devletli­paşa­hazretleri­marifetiyle­mahalline­memur­ve­ mühendis­gönderilerek­keşf­ile­hemen­mevsim­güzerân­etmeksizin­ebniyesi­tamirine­ mübâşeret­ olunmak­ üzre­ defter-­i­ keşfi­ buraya­ gönderilmesi­ ve­ bir­ tarafdan­ dahi­ tamirâtına­ şürû‘­ olunması­ hususu­ Meclis-­i­ Vâlâ’da­ müzâkere­ kılınmış­ olmağın­ ol­ vechle­ icrâ-yı­ icabı­ muvafık-ı­ irade-­i­ seniyye­ buyurulur­ ise­ muktezâsının­ifası­müşir-i­müşârun-ileyh­hazretleriyle­Maliye­Nezaret-­i­celilesi­ tarafına­ havale­ kılınacağı­ muhât-ı­ ilm-­i­ âlîleri­ buyuruldukda­ emr­ u­ ferman­ hazret-­i­men­lehü’l-emrindir.

Appendix 165 Fi­13­L­sene­[12]62 Meclis-­i­Ahkâm-ı­Adliye As it is known by the Vizier, in accordance with the inspection report to the supreme command about the necessary repairs to the ruined Kavala fortress, it was reported that the repair and arbitration of the fortress are necessary and beneficial. Following inspection by civil servants and engineers sent by Tophane-i Amire Müşiri (the Marshall of the Imperial Arsenal) to the region, the account book was handed over and the Supreme Council of Judicial Verdicts discussed starting the repairs of the buildings before the end of the season. Therefore, if the decree of the Sultan agrees that the works should be executed, the fulfillment of the requirements shall be assigned to the Ministry of Finance. The decree and edict belong to the excellency (Sultan). On September 26, 1846

15  Registered in BOA under ML.EEM 7/10 from April 25, 1867 (Rumi: Ni.13.1283) Vilayet-­i­Selanik Cevab­numara:­259 20­Zilhicce­sene­83­ve­13­Nisan­sene­83­tarih­ve­iki­yüz­elli­dokuz­numarasıyla­ mefsuh­meclis-­i­kebirden­Babıali’ye­takdim­olunan­mazbatanın­suretidir. 11­Zilkade­83­ve­6­Mart­sene­[1]283­tarihli­ve­iki­yüz­elli­dokuz­numaralı­olarak­ Meclis-­i­ Vâlâ-yı­ Ahkam-­ı­ Adliye­ daire-­i­ aliyyesinden­ tastir­ ve­ tesyir­ buyurulan­ emirname-­i­sami-­i­cenab-­ı­Vekalet-­penâhîlerinde­Kavala’da­sur­haricinde­olup­ canib-­i­ hükümetden­ furuhtuna­ kıyam­ olunmuş­ olan­ Kumluk­ nam­ arazi-­i­ haliyeden­ kabristana­ muttasıl­ olan­ bin­ zirâʻın­ kıymet-i­ layıkasıyla­ Mısır­ Valisi­ merhum­ Mehmed­ Ali­ Paşa’nın­ tevliyeti­ için­ alınması­ mütevellisi­ tarafından­ istida­olunması­üzerine­mahallinden­tevarüd­eden­mazbata-­i­cevabiyede­mahall­ ­i­mezbur­otuz­bin­zirâʻ­olup­yüz­yirmi­bin­kuruş­bedelle­talib­zuhur­etmiş­ise­de­ dahil-­i­ümran­idiği­gösterildiği­beyan-­ı­âlisiyle­bu­babdaki­malumat-­ı­mahalliyenin­arz­ve­inhası­irade­ve­ferman­buyurulmuştur.­Kavala­İskelesi’ne­vapurların­ uğramasıyla­ ticaretin­ tevessüʻünden­ ve­ derun-­ı­ kaledeki­ ebniyenin­ derece-­i­ kifayede­olmamasından­dolayı­haricde­vaki­arazi-­i­haliyenin­parça­parça­talibe­ satılması­ menfaati­ müstelzim­ olacağı­ Rum­ Patrikliği­ tarafından­ bâ-takrir­ vuku­ bulan­ ifade­ üzerine­ tahkik-­i­ keyfiyeti­ mutazammın­ 6­ Şaban­ sene­ 81­ ve­ 23­ Kanunuevvel­sene­80­tarihiyle­ve­iki­yüz­doksan­dört­numaralı­olarak­Meclis-­i­ Vâlâ­ kararıyla­ makam-­ı­ muʻallâ-yı­ cenab-­ı­ Vekalet-­penâhîlerinden­ şeref­ varid­ olan­ emirname-­i­ sami­ üzerine­ arazi-­i­ mezburenin­ ne­ makule­ yerler­ olduğu­ ve­ satılmasından­muhassenât­ve­bilakis­mahzur­olup­olmadığı­ve­satılacak­olduğu­ halde­topdan­ve­parça­parça­kaç­kuruşa­talib­bulunabileceği­bilinmek­ve­bir­kıta­ haritası­da­gönderilmek­üzre­mahallinden­olunan­istilama­cevaben­alınan­mazbatada­ bu­ yerlerin­ bir­ takımı­ ashabı­ uhdesinde­ olduğu­ ve­ hâlî­ olanların­ dahi­ lede’l-müzâyede­ yüz­ yirmi­ beş­ bin­ kuruşa­ talibi­ zuhur­ eylemiş­ ise­ de­ dahil-­i­ ümran­ idiği­ ve­ haritasının­ tanzimine­ muvaffak­ olunamadığı­ beyan­ olunmuş­ ise­

166

Appendix

de­bununla­matlub­hasıl­olamadığından­baʻdehû­iktizası­teemmül­olunmak­üzre­ bu­yerlerin­furuhtunda­memleket­halkınca­ve­nizam­hükmünce­bir­mahzur­olup­ olmadığının­ ve­ keyfiyât-ı­ hakikiyesinin­ tetkik­ ve­ tahkikiyle­ mümkün­ mertebe­ haritasının­ tanzimi­ zımnında­ mahalline­ memur­ izam­ kılınmıştı.­ Satılması­ istida­ olunan­arazi­haricinde­ve­kale­suruna­bin­arşın­kadar­mesafade­ve­leb-­i­deryada­ otuz­bin­zirâʻ­Kumluk­ve­bir­takım­bayır­ve­taşlık­mahaller­olup­fakat­bir­ucunun­ merhum-­ı­müşârun-ileyhin­ebâ­ve­ecdadı­kabristanına­muttasıl­bulunduğundan­ başka­ dahil-­i­ ümran­ olduğu­ ve­ satılacak­ olsa­ yüz­ elli­ bin­ kuruşdane­ ziyadeye­ çıkması­ memul­ ise­ de­ zuhur­ eden­ müşteriler­ tüccar-ı­ ecnebiyeden­ ibaret­ bulunduğu­anlaşılması­üzerine­sarf-­ı­nazarla­alâ­halihî­terk­olunmuş­ve­husus-­ı­ mezkur­hakkında­olan­malumat­bu­merkezde­bulunmuş­olmağın­ol­babda­emr­ve­ irade­hazret-­i­veliyyü’l-emr­efendimizindir. Kavala’da­sur­haricinde­olup­furuhtu­mukteza-­yı­irade-­i­aliyyeden­olan­arazi-­i­ haliyeden­Hidiv-­i­Mısır­fehametli­devletli­paşa­hazretleri­Hidivleri­Mehmed­Ali­ Paşa­ merhumun­ Kavala’da­ medfun­ pederinin­ türbesi­ etrafında­ takriben­ yirmi­ bin­metre­mesaha­terbîʻinde­bulunan­arazî-i­haliye-­i­emiriye­üzerine­teberrüken­ bir­ cami-­i­ şerif­ ile­ bazı­ ebniye-­i­ ahîreye­ inşa­ eyleyeceklerinden­ arazi-­i­ mezkurenin­ her­ kaç­ kuruş­ değeri­ var­ ise­ iştirâ­ eyleyecekleri­ beyanıyla­ hazinece­ icrâ-yı­ icabı­ Mısır­ Kapı­ kethüdası­ sabık­ atufetli­ Kamil­ Beyefendi­ hazretleri­ taraflarından­bâ-tezkire­vuku­bulan­işar­üzerine­hidiv-­i­müşârun-ileyh­hazretleri­ canib-­i­âlîsinden­iştirâ­buyurulacak­arazi­furuhtu­mukarrer­olan­arazi-­i­hâliye­ midir­yoksa­başka­mıdır­ve­eğerçi­zikr­olunan­arazi-­i­hâliye­vüsʻatli­bir­yer­olup­ da­iştirâ­buyurulacak­yirmi­bin­metre­arazi­anın­dahilinde­ise­o­mikdarının­hakikaten­değer­ve­kıymeti­nedir­ve­o­da­başka­bir­arâzî-i­haliye­ise­furuhtunda­bir­ gûne­mahzur­var­mıdır­ve­inde’l-müzâyede­nihâyetü’n-nihaye­ne­mikdar­muaccele­ile­talib­bulunabilir­buralarının­işarı­zımnında­makam-­ı­nezaret-­i­celilelerinden­ Selanik­ Vilayet-­i­ celilesine­ tastir­ olunan­ tahriratın­ vusulünden­ bahisle­ arazi-­i­mezkure­doksan­bin­metreden­ibaret­olup­hidiv-­i­müşârun-ileyhin­istediği­ mikdardan­mâʻadâsıda­ebniye­inşasına­elverişli­olmasıyla­ahali­kemal-­i­hâheşle­ talib­ bulunduklarından­ bunların­ parça­ parça­ satılmasında­ menfaat­ olup­ fakat­ tefvizine­başlamadıkça­talibleri­layıklı­bedel­vermeyecekleri­ve­hidiv-­i­müşârun­ ileyhin­istediği­mahallin­kıymeti­dahi­bilinemeyeceği­mahalli­işarıyla­tahkikat-­ı­ vâkıadan­anlaşıldığına­mebnî­haritası­baʻde­ez-­în­takdim­olunmak­üzre­mahalline­şimdiden­memur­izamıyla­parça­parça­bi’l-müzâyede­katʻiyyen­satılmasına­ mezuniyet­ verilmesi­ bâ-telgraf­ ve­ şukka­ ve­ mazbata­ inha­ olunması­ üzerine­ bundan­ hidiv-­i­ Mısır­ tarafından­ istenilen­ araziden­ mâʻadâsının­ parça­ parça­ müzayedesi­ bilicrâ­ mevki­ ve­ mahallerinin­ şeref­ ve­ itibarına­ göre­ değerlerini­ bularak­talib-­i­âharları­keff-­i­yed­eyledikden­sonra­takarur­edecek­muacceleleri­ bi’t-tahsil­ katʻiyyen­ furuhtuyla­ mikdar-­ı­ muaccele­ ve­ talibleri­ isimleri­ ve­ mikdar-­ı­ zira­ ve­ hududuyla­ ne­ vechle­ furuht­ kılındığını­ şâmil­ mazbatalarının­ irsali­zımnında­fi­8­Teşrinisani­sene­85­tarihinde­keşide­kılınan­telgrafa­cevaben­ 238­numara­ve­fi­21­Temmuz­sene­86­tarihli­varid­olan­şukkada­arazii­mezkureden­hidiv-­i­müşarun-ileyh­hazretlerine­verilecek­olan­mahallerden­mâʻadâsından­ otuz­ yedi­ bin­ yüz­ otuz­ iki­ arşın­ mahalli­ yedişer­ onardan­ nihayet­ yirmi­ beşer­

Appendix 167 kuruşa­olarak­fiyat-­ı­muhtelife­ile­talibleri­uhdelerine­ihale­olunmuş­ve­bedelâtı­ lira­ olarak­ alınmak­ meşrut­ idiğinden­ yekunu­ üç­ bin­ sekiz­ yüz­ bu­ kadar­ liraya­ baliğ­ olduğu­ gibi­ yetmiş­ yedi­ bin­ beş­ yüz­ on­ ziraı­ dahi­ fey-­i­ muhtelif­ ile­ pey­ altına­alınarak­derdest-­i­müzayede­olduğu­ve­kusur­doksan­bin­dört­yüz­doksan­ zirâʻ­ mahalle­ henüz­ pey­ sürülmemiş­ ve­ mecmuu­ iki­ yüz­ bin­ ziraʻdan­ ziyade­ olduğu­ ve­ arâzî-i­ merkumeden­ hidiviyet-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ tefriki­ münasib­ görünmüş­ olan­ mahal­ merbutan­ takdim­ kılınan­ haritada­ gösterildiği­ üzre­ otuz­ bin­ sekiz­ yüz­ yirmi­ üç­ ziraa­ bâliğ­ olup­ şimdiye­ kadar­ ihale­ olunan­ mahallerin­ beher­zirâʻı­yirmi­beş­kuruşa­kadar­verilmesine­ve­bu­mahallin­kasabaya­kurbiyyeti­cihetiyle­bir­tarafının­şerefi­ziyade­bulunmasına­nazaran­biri­biri­üzerine­ bunun­dahi­beher­zirâʻına­yirmişer­kuruş­bedel­takdiri­derece-­i­itidâlde­görünüp­ bu­suretçe­hesab­olundukda­bedeli­yedi­bin­dokuz­yüz­altmış­dört­lira­ile­altmış­ kuruşa­bâliğ­olup­bunun­icab­eden­mahallerden­istifası­lazım­geleceği­beyanıyla­ icabının­ icrası­ beyan­ ve­ işar­ olunmuş­ ve­ arazi-­i­ mezkureden­ furuht­ kılınmış­ olanlarının­tefvîzi­icra­olunmak­üzre­bedellerinin­ahz­ve­istihsaliyle­kimlere­ne­ mikdar­ mahal­ furuht­ kulındığının­ ve­ hudud­ ve­ sınırıyla­ mikdar-­ı­ ziraʻlarını­ mübeyyin­mazbatalarının­hemen­ve­pey­altında­olarak­derdest-­i­müzayede­olan­ ve­ henüz­ pey­ sürülmeyen­ mahallerinin­ dahi­ teşvikat­ icrasıyla­ bi’l-müzâyede­ nihayet­kararlarının­peyderpey­bâ-mazbata­işarı­zımnında­canib-­i­nezaret-­i­celilelerinden­5­Ağustos­sene­86­tarihinde­Selanik­Vilayet-­i­celilesine­tahrirat-­ı­telfrafiye­ keşide­ kılınmış­ ve­ arazi-­i­ mezkureden­ hidiviyet-­i­ müşârun-ileyh­ hazretlerinin­istirasına­rağbet­buyurulacak­olan­otuz­dokuz­bin­sekiz­yüz­yirmi­ üç­ zira­ mahallin­ şukka-i­ mezkure­ ile­ haritasında­ gösterildiği­ üzre­ beher­ ziraı­ yirmişer­ kuruşdan­ inde’l-hesab­ yedi­ bin­ dokuz­ yüz­ altmış­ dört­ lira­ ve­ altmış­ kuruş­ bulunmuş­ olmasıyla­ muvafık-ı­ rey-­i­ âlî-i­ cenab-­ı­ nezaret-­penâhîleri­ buyurulduğu­halde­merbut­haritanın­leffiyle­istizân-ı­reyi­şamil­Babıali­canib-­i­ sâmîsine­ tezkire-­i­ mahsusa­ tastir­ buyurulması­ babında­ ferman­ hazret-­i­ men­ lehü’l-emrindir. Fi­19­Ca­sene­[1]287­ve­fi­5­Ağustos­sene­[1]286 [Mühür] Province of Selanik Answer number: 259 This is the copy of the mazbata (official report), dated April 25, 1867, and numbered 259, which was introduced to the Sublime Porte from the no longer operational Grand Assembly.3 The trustee of the foundation of the late Egyptian governor Mehmet Ali Pasha asked to buy a thousand zira (1 zira = 77.5 cm) of unused land in the area called Kumluk, outside the town of Kavala, adjacent to the cemetery, to be sold by the government according to its value. Thereupon, in the responsive official report sent from its place, it was revealed that this land was 30,000 zira and it had worth of 120,000 kurush. However, on the statement that the land has potential, it was ordered to give information about the area by the ordinance of the Grand Vizier which was written and sent by the Higher Assembly of Judicial Verdicts, dated March 18, 1865, and numbered 259. Given the growth of trade and amount of ships coming to Kavala’s port and the

168

Appendix

inadequacy of the dwellings inside the castle, the Rum Patriarchate has repeatedly expressed interest in the sale of unused parcels to those who ask for land. Upon this statement, with the decision of the Higher Assembly and the order of the Grand Vizier, dated January 4, 1865, and numbered 294, a record of the benefits and disadvantages arising from the sale of the mentioned land was requested to learn how many kurush the land as wholesale or parceled piece is worth and to send an urban map. In response to this request for information, it was declared that these sites belonged to a certain number of owners, and although a demand for 125 kurush has emerged at auction, it has been declared that the area is in prosperity and the parcelation mapping was unsuccessful. Since the desired results could not be obtained with this declaration, an officer was sent to determine whether there is a problem with the local people and regulations, and to learn the current situation, and to organize the mapping of the area soon as possible. Excepting the land whose sale is requested, there are a thousand arşın (zira) away from the fortress and by the sea, 30,000 zira at sandy, stony, and sloped sites. The side of the terrain adjacent to the cemetery of Mehmed Ali Pasha’s deceased ancestors has certain worth, and if it is sold, the price will be higher than 150,000 kurush. However, it was neglected and abandoned, and it turned out that the users of this area are nothing more than foreign merchants. The information about this topic is going in this direction, and the orders and wills belong to our Sultan. An official message has announced that the former chamberlain of Egypt, Kamil Bey, declared that the approximately 20 thousand square meters of land around the mausoleum of Mehmet Ali Pasha’s father, who was buried in Kavala, which is the part of the unused land outside the city of Kavala whose sale was ordered by the state, will be bought in exchange for its value, and that the requirements will be made by the treasury. In the official correspondence written by the Ministry office (financial) to the province of Thessaloniki, there is a question about whether the land to be purchased by the Khedive is land already designated for sale or different land; if the mentioned land is empty and the 20,000 meters of land to be purchased lies inside the empty land, what is its true value?; if it is other unused land, are there any obstacles to its sale?; how much money is received from the rent of the state property by tenants?; and is it possible to find a buyer through auction? In regard to this correspondence, this land is 90,000 meters and the other parts of land, except for the land the Khedive wants to buy, are also suitable for building. Because the inhabitants show keen interest in buying this land, it would be beneficial to sell the land parcel by parcel. However, investigation of the situation made it clear that the applicants who want to buy this land will not pay the applicable price, so the price of the land which the Khedive desires to buy will not be estimated unless a transaction starts. Therefore, on the condition that an urban map of the area and its parcelation will be submitted later, it was decided to sell the land in pieces after sending an officer to the region to inspect it. After a telegraph, a shukka (small permission document) and a record were sent, an auction was held to sell the lands piece by piece, except for the part the Khedive wants. After learning the prices

Appendix 169 of the land plots according to their worth, the other applicants withdrew and decisions were made, and rents from the parcels were collected. The records, including exact sales, amount of rents, names of buyers, size and borders of purchased lands and reasons for purchases, were sent. In received shukka numbered 238 and dated August 2, 1870, in response to the telegram dated November 20, 1869, it is stated that 37,132 arşın (same as zira) lands other than the one discussed above that will be given to the Khedive, will be given over to the responsibility of the applicants for different prices, 7, 10, and ultimately 25 kurush. The order is to collect the incomes in cash. The total amount was 3800 and change liras. Seven thousand five hundred and ten zira of various fey (lands taken by non-Muslims with reconciliation or tax) is covered by the auction and it is not submitted as a bid for the remaining 90,490 zira. The land value reached up to 30,823 zira as shown in the map which included the separated part for the Khediviate. Since it was rated up to 25 kurush a price for each zira so far, and because one side’s proximity to the town made it more valued, the price of 20 kurush on each zira was considered enough. When calculated in this way, the price corresponded to 7964 liras 60 kurush and it is stated and notified in the document that this amount was taken completely where it was necessary. On August 17, 1870, a telegram was sent by the Ministry authority to the province of Thessaloniki, ordering it to send the report immediately defining the lands, their borders, and their square measures; and those whose prices have not yet been fixed at the auction and it has been ordered for their sales to be encouraged and their conditions have been described piece by piece in the document. The Ministry authority agreed with the sales of the part of 39,823 zira, that were shown in the shukka in exchange for 7064 liras and 60 kurush by calculating 20 kurush per zira. The edict belongs to the Sultan for writing the official message for this purpose.

On September 16, 1870 and August 17, 1870

[Seal]

16  Registered in BOA under ML.EEM 15/7 from August 24, 1870 (Rumi: A.12.1286) Kavala’da­sur­haricinde­olup­furuhtu­mukteza-­yı­irade-­i­aliyyeden­olan­arazi-­i­ haliyeden­Hidiv-­i­Mısır­fehametli­devletli­paşa­hazretleri­Hidivleri­Mehmed­Ali­ Paşa­ merhumun­ Kavala’da­ medfun­ pederinin­ türbesi­ etrafında­ takriben­ yirmi­ bin­metre­mesaha­terbîʻinde­bulunan­arazî-i­haliye-­i­emiriye­üzerine­teberrüken­ bir­ cami-­i­ şerif­ ile­ bazı­ ebniye-­i­ ahîreye­ inşa­ eyleyeceklerinden­ arazi-­i­ mezkurenin­ her­ kaç­ kuruş­ değeri­ var­ ise­ iştirâ­ eyleyecekleri­ beyanıyla­ hazinece­ icrâ-yı­ icabı­ Mısır­ Kapı­ kethüdası­ sabık­ atufetli­ Kamil­ Beyefendi­ hazretleri­ taraflarından­bâ-tezkire­vuku­bulan­işar­üzerine­hidiv-­i­müşârun-ileyh­hazretleri­ canib-­i­âlîsinden­iştirâ­buyurulacak­arazi­furuhtu­mukarrer­olan­arazi-­i­hâliye­ midir­yoksa­başka­mıdır­ve­eğerçi­zikr­olunan­arazi-­i­hâliye­vüsʻatli­bir­yer­olup­ da­iştirâ­buyurulacak­yirmi­bin­metre­arazi­anın­dahilinde­ise­o­mikdarının­hakikaten­değer­ve­kıymeti­nedir­ve­o­da­başka­bir­arâzî-i­haliye­ise­furuhtunda­bir­

170

Appendix

gûne­mahzur­var­mıdır­ve­inde’l-müzâyede­nihâyetü’n-nihaye­ne­mikdar­muaccele­ile­talib­bulunabilir­buralarının­işarı­zımnında­makam-­ı­nezaret-­i­celilelerinden­ Selanik­ Vilayet-­i­ celilesine­ tastir­ olunan­ tahriratın­ vusulünden­ bahisle­ arazi-­i­mezkure­doksan­bin­metreden­ibaret­olup­hidiv-­i­müşârun-ileyhin­istediği­ mikdardan­mâʻadâsıda­ebniye­inşasına­elverişli­olmasıyla­ahali­kemal-­i­hâheşle­ talib­ bulunduklarından­ bunların­ parça­ parça­ satılmasında­ menfaat­ olup­ fakat­ tefvizine­başlamadıkça­talibleri­layıklı­bedel­vermeyecekleri­ve­hidiv-­i­müşârun­ ileyhin­istediği­mahallin­kıymeti­dahi­bilinemeyeceği­mahalli­işarıyla­tahkikat-­ı­ vâkıadan­anlaşıldığına­mebnî­haritası­baʻde­ez-­în­takdim­olunmak­üzre­mahalline­şimdiden­memur­izamıyla­parça­parça­bi’l-müzâyede­katʻiyyen­satılmasına­ mezuniyet­ verilmesi­ bâ-telgraf­ ve­ şukka­ ve­ mazbata­ inha­ olunması­ üzerine­ bundan­ hidiv-­i­ Mısır­ tarafından­ istenilen­ araziden­ mâʻadâsının­ parça­ parça­ müzayedesi­ bilicrâ­ mevki­ ve­ mahallerinin­ şeref­ ve­ itibarına­ göre­ değerlerini­ bularak­talib-­i­âharları­keff-­i­yed­eyledikden­sonra­takarur­edecek­muacceleleri­ bi’t-tahsil­ katʻiyyen­ furuhtuyla­ mikdar-­ı­ muaccele­ ve­ talibleri­ isimleri­ ve­ mikdar-­ı­ zira­ ve­ hududuyla­ ne­ vechle­ furuht­ kılındığını­ şâmil­ mazbatalarının­ irsali­zımnında­fi­8­Teşrinisani­sene­85­tarihinde­keşide­kılınan­telgrafa­cevaben­ 238­numara­ve­fi­21­Temmuz­sene­86­tarihli­varid­olan­şukkada­arazii­mezkureden­hidiv-­i­müşarun-ileyh­hazretlerine­verilecek­olan­mahallerden­mâʻadâsından­ otuz­ yedi­ bin­ yüz­ otuz­ iki­ arşın­ mahalli­ yedişer­ onardan­ nihayet­ yirmi­ beşer­ kuruşa­olarak­fiyat-­ı­muhtelife­ile­talibleri­uhdelerine­ihale­olunmuş­ve­bedelâtı­ lira­ olarak­ alınmak­ meşrut­ idiğinden­ yekunu­ üç­ bin­ sekiz­ yüz­ bu­ kadar­ liraya­ baliğ­ olduğu­ gibi­ yetmiş­ yedi­ bin­ beş­ yüz­ on­ ziraı­ dahi­ fey-­i­ muhtelif­ ile­ pey­ altına­alınarak­derdest-­i­müzayede­olduğu­ve­kusur­doksan­bin­dört­yüz­doksan­ zirâʻ­ mahalle­ henüz­ pey­ sürülmemiş­ ve­ mecmuu­ iki­ yüz­ bin­ ziraʻdan­ ziyade­ olduğu­ ve­ arâzî-i­ merkumeden­ hidiviyet-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ tefriki­ münasib­ görünmüş­ olan­ mahal­ merbutan­ takdim­ kılınan­ haritada­ gösterildiği­ üzre­ otuz­ bin­ sekiz­ yüz­ yirmi­ üç­ ziraa­ bâliğ­ olup­ şimdiye­ kadar­ ihale­ olunan­ mahallerin­ beher­zirâʻı­yirmi­beş­kuruşa­kadar­verilmesine­ve­bu­mahallin­kasabaya­kurbiyyeti­cihetiyle­bir­tarafının­şerefi­ziyade­bulunmasına­nazaran­biri­biri­üzerine­ bunun­dahi­beher­zirâʻına­yirmişer­kuruş­bedel­takdiri­derece-­i­itidâlde­görünüp­ bu­suretçe­hesab­olundukda­bedeli­yedi­bin­dokuz­yüz­altmış­dört­lira­ile­altmış­ kuruşa­bâliğ­olup­bunun­icab­eden­mahallerden­istifası­lazım­geleceği­beyanıyla­ icabının­ icrası­ beyan­ ve­ işar­ olunmuş­ ve­ arazi-­i­ mezkureden­ furuht­ kılınmış­ olanlarının­tefvîzi­icra­olunmak­üzre­bedellerinin­ahz­ve­istihsaliyle­kimlere­ne­ mikdar­ mahal­ furuht­ kulındığının­ ve­ hudud­ ve­ sınırıyla­ mikdar-­ı­ ziraʻlarını­ mübeyyin­mazbatalarının­hemen­ve­pey­altında­olarak­derdest-­i­müzayede­olan­ ve­ henüz­ pey­ sürülmeyen­ mahallerinin­ dahi­ teşvikat­ icrasıyla­ bi’l-müzâyede­ nihayet­kararlarının­peyderpey­bâ-mazbata­işarı­zımnında­canib-­i­nezaret-­i­celilelerinden­5­Ağustos­sene­86­tarihinde­Selanik­Vilayet-­i­celilesine­tahrirat-­ı­telfrafiye­ keşide­ kılınmış­ ve­ arazi-­i­ mezkureden­ hidiviyet-­i­ müşârun-ileyh­ hazretlerinin­istirasına­rağbet­buyurulacak­olan­otuz­dokuz­bin­sekiz­yüz­yirmi­ üç­ zira­ mahallin­ şukka-i­ mezkure­ ile­ haritasında­ gösterildiği­ üzre­ beher­ ziraı­ yirmişer­ kuruşdan­ inde’l-hesab­ yedi­ bin­ dokuz­ yüz­ altmış­ dört­ lira­ ve­ altmış­ kuruş­ bulunmuş­ olmasıyla­ muvafık-ı­ rey-­i­ âlî-i­ cenab-­ı­ nezaret-­penâhîleri­

Appendix 171 buyurulduğu­halde­merbut­haritanın­leffiyle­istizân-ı­reyi­şamil­Babıali­canib-­i­

sâmîsine­ tezkire-­i­ mahsusa­ tastir­ buyurulması­ babında­ ferman­ hazret-­i­ men­

lehü’l-emrindir.

Fi­19­Ca­sene­[1]287­ve­fi­5­Ağustos­sene­[1]286

[Mühür] A tezkire (official message) has announced that the former chamberlain of Egypt, Kamil Bey, declared that the approximately 20 thousand square meters of land around the mausoleum of Mehmet Ali Pasha’s father, who was buried in Kavala, which is the part of the unused land outside the city of Kavala whose sale was ordered by the state, will be bought in exchange for its value, and that the requirements will be made by the treasury. In the official correspondence written by the Ministry office (financial) to the province of Thessaloniki, there is a question about whether the land to be purchased by the Khedive is land already designated for sale or different land; if the mentioned land is empty and the 20,000 meters of land to be purchased lies inside the empty land, what is its true value?; if it is other unused land, are there any obstacles to its sale?; how much money is received from the rent of the state property by tenants?; and is it possible to find a buyer through auction? In regard to this correspondence, this land is 90,000 meters and the other parts of land, except for the land the Khedive wants to buy, are also suitable for building. Because the inhabitants show keen interest in buying this land, it would be beneficial to sell the land parcel by parcel. However, investigation of the situation made it clear that the applicants who want to buy this land will not pay the applicable price, so the price of the land which the Khedive desires to buy will not be estimated unless a transaction starts. Therefore, on the condition that an urban map of the area and its parcelation will be submitted later, it was decided to sell the land in pieces after sending an officer to the region to inspect it. After a telegraph, a shukka (small permission document) and a record were sent, an auction was held to sell the lands piece by piece, except for the part the Khedive wants. After learning the prices of the land plots according to their worth, the other applicants withdrew and decisions were made, and rents from the parcels were collected. The records, including exact sales, amount of rents, names of buyers, size and borders of purchased lands and reasons for purchases, were sent. In received shukka numbered 238 and dated August 2, 1870, in response to the telegram dated November 20, 1869, it is stated that 37,132 arşın (same as zira) lands other than the one discussed above that will be given to the Khedive, will be given over to the responsibility of the applicants for different prices, 7, 10, and ultimately 25 kurush. The order is to collect the incomes in cash. The total amount was 3800 and change liras. Seven thousand five hundred and ten zira of various fey (lands taken by non-Muslims with reconciliation or tax) is covered by the auction and it is not submitted as a bid for the remaining 90,490 zira. The land value reached up to 30,823 zira as shown in the map which included the separated part for the Khediviate. Since it was rated up to 25 kurush a price for each zira so far, and because one side’s proximity to the town made it more valued, the price of 20

172

Appendix

kurush on each zira was considered enough. When calculated in this way, the price corresponded to 7964 liras 60 kurush and it is stated and notified in the document that this amount was taken completely where it was necessary. On August 17, 1870, a telegram was sent by the Ministry authority to the province of Thessaloniki, ordering it to send the report immediately defining the lands, their borders, and their square measures; and those whose prices have not yet been fixed at the auction and it has been ordered for their sales to be encouraged and their conditions have been described piece by piece in the document. The Ministry authority agreed with the sales of the part of 39,823 zira, that were shown in the shukka in exchange for 7064 liras and 60 kurush by calculating 20 kurush per zira. The edict belongs to the Sultan for writing the official message for this purpose.

On September 16, 1870 and August 17, 1870

[Seal]

17  Registered in BOA under ML.EEM 16/14 from February 3, 1871 (Rumi: Ks.21.1286) Kavala’da­sur­haricinde­olup­mahallince­taliblerine­furuht­olunmakda­bulunan­ arazi-­i­ hâliyeden­ Mehmed­ Ali­ Paşa­ merhumun­ Kavala’da­ medfun­ pederinin­ türbesi­ etrafında­ olan­ mahallin­ bazı­ ebniye-­i­ hayriye­ inşası­ için­ hidiv-­i­ Mısır­ fehametli­devletli­paşa­hazretleri­tarafından­iştira­olunacağı­cihetle­icra-­yı­icabı­ Mısır­ kethüdalığı­ canibinden­ mukaddem­ nezaret-­i­ Maliye’ye­ işar­ olunması­ üzerine­ Selanik­ vilayetiyle­ ceryan­ eden­ muhaberenin­ alınan­ cevabına­ nazaran­ arazi-­i­ merkumeden­ hidiv-­i­ müşârun-ileyh­ hazretleri­ için­ tefriki­ lazım­ gelen­ mahal otuz dokuz bin sekiz yüz yirmi üç zira olarak bunun kasabaya kurbiyyeti münasebetiyle­ bir­ tarafının­ şarkı­ ziyade­ bulunmasına­ ve­ birbiri­ üzerine­ beher­ ziraına­yirmişer­kuruş­bedel­takdiri­derece-­i­itidalde­görünmesine­mebni­mezkur­ otuz­dokuz­bin­bu­kadar­zirâʻ­mahallin­mahallince­takdir­olunan­yedi­bin­dokuz­ yüz­altmış­dört­lira­altmış­kuruş­bedel­ile­hidiv-­i­müşârun-ileyhe­beyʻ­ve­furuhtu­ hususuna­bi’l-istizân­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­padişahi­müteallik­buyurulduğu­3­ Receb­ sene­ 87­ tarihinde­ şeref­ sudur­ eden­ bir­ kıta­ buyuruldî-i­ âlîde­ emir­ ve­ ferman­ buyurulmuş­ olmakla­ baʻdehû­ icra-­yı­ icabına­ bakılmak­ üzre­ meblağ-ı­ bedel-­i­mezbur­yedi­bin­dokuz­yüz­altmış­dört­lira­altmış­kuruşun­Maliye­Hazine-­i­ celilesine­ irsali­ için­ makam-­ı­ nezaret-­i­ celile-­i­ maliyeden­ Mısır­ kapı­ kethüdası­ atufetli­ efendi­ hazretlerine­ tezkire­ tastiri­ için­ 23­ Eylül­ sene­ 86­ tarihinde­müzekkiresi­verildiği­mukayyeddir. Fi 21 Kanunusani sene 86 Yazıldı. The Khedive of Egypt wants to buy the unused lands outside Kavala walls around the mausoleum of the father of the deceased Mehmed Ali Pasha in order to build some charity work structures. After the chamberlain of Egypt requested the Ministry of Finance for further action, communication with the province of Thessaloniki determined the portion of land reserved for the Khedive is 39,823

Appendix 173 zira. Due to the land’s proximity to the town, it was considered reasonable to charge 20 kurush for each zira of land, so for the aforementioned zira, the total price of 39 thousand-odd land 7964 liras 60 kurush was fixed. A permission from the Sultan was requested for the sale of the land in return for this fixed price on September 29, 1870, and an edict was issued together with an honorary decree. It was recorded that there was given a message by the Ministry authority to the Egyptian chamberlain for sending the mentioned amount of 7964 liras and 60 kurush to the Imperial Treasury, on October 5, 1870. On February 2, 1871 Was written.

18  Registered in BOA under ŞD 2006/8 from May 8, 1875 (Hicri: R.02.1292) Adet:­81 Kavala’nın­ haricinde­ olup­ taliblerine­ furuht­ olunmakda­ bulunan­ arazinin­ mevaki-i münasibesinde rusumat ve karantina daireleri ve rusumat dairesinin pişgahında­ birde­ iskele­ inşasıyla­ işbu­ iskeleden­ imrar­ olunacak­ eşya-i­ ticariyenin­ beher­ denginden­ bir­ müddet-i­ muvakkate­ için­ ikişer­ para­ resm­ istihsali­ hakkında­bazı­ifâdatı­havi­Selanik­Vilayeti­Meclis-­i­İdaresi’nin­varid­olup­fi­20­ Şaban­ sene­ [12]91­ tarihinde­ Şura-yı­ Devlet’e­ havale­ buyurulan­ mazbatası­ dahiliye­ dairesinde­ lede’l-kırâe­ hulasa-­i­ meâlinde­ zikr­ olunan­ dairelerle­ iskelenin­ inşası­ ve­ müteferri‘âtının­ icrası­ mukaddema­ mahallince­ kararlaştırılmış­ iken sonradan bu sureti arzu eden ahalinin ekalliyetinden ve resm-i mezkurun ahz­ve­istihsâlinde­sızıldı­vuku­bulacağından­bahisle­karar-­ı­mezkurun­keen­lem­ yekun­hükmünde­kalması­lazım­geleceğinin­inhası­şimdiki­rusumat­ve­karantina­ daireleri­müteneffizân-ı­ahâlîden­birinin­malı­olduğundan­bunların­terki­halinde­ icarelerinin­ kat‘­ edileceği­ mutalaasıyla­ anın­ ve­ rusumat­ dairesi­ civarında­ mağazalara­mutasarrıf­olan­ahalinin­eser-­i­teşvikat­ve­tasnî‘âtı­olup­yoksa­işbu­ dairelerin­ inşası­ tasavvur­ olunan­ mahal­ şimdiki­ mevki‘lerine­ sekiz­ on­ dakika­ mesafede­olark­kurb­ve­bu‘dce­hissolunur­derece­tefâvüt­olmamasıyla­tüccar­ve­ esnafca­bir­gûne­müşkilat­melhuz­olmadığı­misillü­bunların­oraya­inşasına­karar­ verilmesinden­ dolayı­ iki­ üç­ yüz­ bin­ kuruşluk­ arazi­ satılmış­ ve­ bu­ kararın­ tervicinde­daha­üç­dört­yüz­bin­kuruşluk­arazinin­furuhtu­kaviyyen­memul­bulunmuş­ olduğu­cihetle­bundan­oraların­husul-­i­şeref­ve­mamuriyetiyle­beraber­Hazine-­i­ celilece­ hayli­ menfat­ hasıl­ olacağı­ ve­ sâlifü’z-zikr­ iskelenin­ inşası­ dahi­ Kavala’da­hiçbir­iskele­olmayıp­eşyâ-i­ticariyeyi­hamallar­denizin­içine­girerek­ çıkarmakda­ olduklarından­ ve­ alınacak­ resmin­ cüziyyetinden­ naşi­ herkesce­ mucib-­i­memnuniyet­olup­ma‘a­haza­bu­resmi­itadan­imtinâ‘­edenlerin­eşyasını­ iskeleden­imrârda­tahyiri­dahi­mümkinâtdan­bulunduğu­beyanıyla­karar-­ı­evvel­ hükmünün­icrası­istizan­olunmuş­ve­ol­babda­bi’l-muhabere­Rusumat­Emanet-­i­ behiyyesinden­ alınan­ cevabda­ dahi­ Selanik­ Rusumat­ Nezareti’nin­ işar-ı­ ahîrinden­ müsteban­ olduğuna­ göre­ el-­yevm­ Rusumat­ Dairesi­ olan­ mahal­ için­ senevî­ on­ beş­ bin­ kuruş­ icare­ verilmekde­ olduğu­ ve­ inşası­ tasavvur­ olunan­ Rusumat­Dairesi­arsasını­ittisâlinde­tüccardan­Nikolaki­Liforyadi­nam­kimesnenin­

174

Appendix

bir­mikdar­arazi­mübayaasıyla­yapmış­olduğu­iki­mağaza­daha­vüs‘atli­ve­eşya­ muayenesine­ elverişli­ olarak­ tacir-­i­ merkum­ bunları­ diğerinden­ senevî­ üç­ bin­ kuruş­ noksanıyla­ yani­ on­ iki­ bin­ kuruşa­ olmak­ üzre­ beş­ sene­ müddetle­ ve­ bu­ müddet­ içinde­ canib-­i­ miriden­ mahsusen­ daire­ inşa­ edilecek­ olur­ ise­ bir­ gûne­ davaya­salahiyeti­olamayıp­fakt­isticar­suretiyle­mahall-­i­âhara­nakl­olunamamak­ve­vuku­bulacak­tamiratı­tarafına­ait­olmak­şartıyla­icare­tâlib­olup­şimdiki­ daire­ mevki‘an­ şehrin­ vasatı­ olması­ cihetiyle­ havâyic-i­ zaruriyelerinden­ olan­ eşya­ ve­ erzakın­ mukaddemâ­ gümrük­ muamelâtı­ için­ oraya­ vüruduyla­ bey‘­ ve­ şirâsında­ gördükleri­ bazı­ suhûlete­ mebnî­ oranın­ âhar­ mahalle­ nakli­ ahalinin­ hilaf-­ı­marzîsi­bulunmuş­idiyse­de­kar­gümrüklerinin­lağvından­dolayı­artık­bu­ mutalaaya­da­mahal­kalmadıkdan­başka­cihât-ı­adideden­ve­bâ-husus­Rusumat­ Dairesi­ icaresinden­ Hazine-­i­ celilece­ menfaat­ hasıl­ olacağı­ anlaşılmış­ ve­ gümrük­ pişgahına­ inşası­ tasavvur­ olunan­ iskeleye­ gelince­ eşyâ-i­ ticâriyeden­ gümrük­ resminin­ gayri­ hiçbir­ nam­ ile­ resm­ ahzine­ ahden­ mesâğ­ olmamasıyla­ tüccarın­ iskele­ resmi­ itasına­ mecbur­ tutulması­ caiz­ olamaz­ ise­ de­ eşya-i­ vâridenin­ münhasıran­ mezkur­ iskeleden­ imrârı­ için­ ashâbı­ icbâr­ olunmayacağı­ cümle-i­ işardan­ olmasıyla­ işbu­ iskelenin­ inşası­ mahzurdan­ salim­ görünmüş­ olduğuna­ve­mârru’z-zikr­mağazaların­beş­sene­müddetle­ve­şerâit-i­murakkama­ ile­isticârı­halinde­çünkü­inşası­mutasavver­olan­daire­müddet-i­mezbure­içinde­ vücuda getirilip de oray nakl olunacak olur ise ber-minvâl-i muharrer sahibinin bir­ gûne­ muhâlefete­ salahiyeti­ olamayacağına­ binâen­ yapılacak­ dairenin­ bir­ tarafından­ keşfi­ icrâ­ ettirilmek­ üzre­ mezkur­ mağazaların­ şimdiden­ bi’l-istîcâr­ Rusumat­İdaresi’nin­oraya­nakli­münasib­olacağı­beyan­kılınmışdır. ­ İşarât-ı­ meşrûhaya­ nazaran­ mebhûsün­ anh­ olan­ dâirelerin­ arâzî-i­ merkume­ üzerine­ inşasından­ sarf-­ı­ nazar­ kılınması­ hakkında­ mukaddemce­ gösterilen­ arzu­ mu‘allel­ bi’l-i‘tirâz­ olup­ karar-­ı­ evvelin­ mevki‘-i­ icraya­ konulması­ hazine­ ve­ ticaretce­ menâfi‘-i­ adîdeyi­ müstelzim­ olacağı­ gibi­ eşyâ-i­ ticariyenin­ sâlifü’z-zikr­ iskeleden­imrarı­taht-­ı­mecburiyetde­olmayacağı­ve­zikr­olunan­mağazaların­müddet-i­istîcârı­zarfında­inşası­mutasavver­olan­daire­vücuda­getirilip­de­oray­nakl­ olunacak­olur­ise­sahibinin­bir­gûne­muhalefete­hakk­ve­salahiyeti­olamamsı­şart­ ittihâz­edilmiş­olduğu­cihetlerle­mahzurdan­salim­göründüğünden­rehîn-i­tensîb-i­ âlî-i­ Vekâlet-penâhîleri­ olduğu­ halde­ mezkur­ mağazaların­ şimdiden­ bi’l-isticâr­ Rusumat­İdaresi­Heyeti’nin­oraya­nakliyle­beraber­badehu­icabına­bakılmak­üzre­ yapılacak­ dairenin­ hemen­ keşf­ ettirilmesi­ hususunun­ emanet-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ vve­ inşası­ iktiza­ eden­ karantinahanenin­ keşfi­ maddesinin­ dahi­ Ticaret­ Nezaret-­i­ celilesine­ işar­ ve­ havale­ ve­ Maliye­ Nezaret-­i­ celilesiyle­ vilayet-­i­ merkume­ valiliğine­malumat­ita­buyurulması­tezekkür­kılındı­ise­de­ol­babda. Number of Copy: 81 The summary of the report from the Administration Council of the City of Thessaloniki to the Council of State on October 2, 1874, which was discussed at the Internal Affairs’ Department, mentions a plot of land located outside Kavala’s town walls that interested parties desired to lease. At an appropriate location on that land, there is a need to build a tax-office, a quarantine building, and a pier in

Appendix 175 front of them to collect taxes from trade goods entering the port; two para should be paid for each item passing through the port entry, but this amount will be temporary and is subject to change. Previously the decision to construct the aforementioned structures, the pier, and the other extensions, had been executed by the locals. Later this decision was deemed inappropriate and invalid since the people who advocate this form of development are minorities and there would be some problems collecting the taxes, Since the current tax-office and quarantine buildings are owned by some of the locals, in the case of abandonment of these structures, it is clear the tax incomes will be cut. Moreover, this issue presents a disadvantage to the general interest on the side of the owners of the magazines located around the tax-office. The site where the construction of these buildings is envisioned is eight or ten minutes away from their current location and such buildings will be constructed between eight to ten minutes’ walking distance from the current location. There is no noticeable difference in relative distance. On the part of the merchants and guildsman, there is no probability of difficulty [reaching there]. From the time it was decided to construct these buildings there, [up to now], two or three thousand kurush worth of land have been sold. As soon as this decision is put into effect, three or four thousand kurush worth of land will likely be sold. As the site promises to be valued and prosperous, it will provide financial benefit to the Central Treasury. On the other hand, since there is no form of pier at the town of Kavala, the porters have to walk into the sea to bring the merchandise to shore. Keeping the tax rate low will result in appreciation. It has been announced that in some cases, it is even possible to forgive those who abstain from paying the tax on merchandise passing through the pier. Therefore, the execution of the previous decision and the Tax Office reply was that the Taxes Office of Thessaloniki clearly confirmed that they pay 15,000 kurush rent per year for the current location allocated for the tax-office. In front of the plot of the land where construction of a new tax-office is planned, there is another land parcel on which two magazines stand belonging to the merchant Nikolaki Liforyadi. These are large enough and suitable for supervision of merchandise. The aforementioned merchant desires to rent the remaining plots on the condition that the annual rent will be 12,000 kurush, that’s to say 3000 kurush discount; the agreement will be valid for five years and within this period, if the government desires to build a special office, he will not have any form of right to sue; but, it is agreed not to move to another land by rent; and the future repair costs will be covered by him. Since the current building is located at the center of the town, the essential supply of provisions to this location for customs procedures is easy and the transport of these supplies is simple. Therefore, the locals have no consent for the relocation of the tax-office. Even though there is no place for thoughts like this because the land custom offices have already been abolished. Moreover, it has been established that the Central Treasury will benefit from this income, which it can use to meet the expenses from wars. Speaking of the pier that was planned to be built in front of the customs office, there is no license to demand taxes for merchandise except for the customs charges. And it is inappropriate to force the merchants to pay any form of tax for

176

Appendix

the use of the pier. It is advised to allow the owners of the goods to pass freely through the pier. There is no objection to building this pier if the aforementioned magazines are rented out for a five-year term with a written contract. If the desired building is constructed at the newly rented location, the owners of the magazines will not claim any right in any form for this relocation. Therefore, it is declared that there is an urgent need to prepare an elaborate register specifying the construction of the building, and to move the magazines around the location of the tax-office. With regard to the aforementioned issues, the previous decision to avoid building of the tax-office, quarantine building, and the pier, the aforementioned land is not encouraged anymore due to several disadvantages to the treasury and trade activities. Moreover, the merchants are not obliged to pass their trade goods through the pier. If the building is constructed upon the newly rented location, it is negotiated that the owners of the magazines will not use any right and authority to prevent the relocation of the new building. With the permission granted by the Ministry, aforesaid magazines will be relocated at the site of the tax-office. Therefore, the Tax Office [of Thessaloniki] is assigned to prepare a detailed construction register for the tax-office building of Kavala. As for detailed construction register of the quarantine building, the Ministry of Commerce is referred to deal with. The Ministry of Finance and the aforesaid province should be informed/notified about the issue.

19  Registered in BOA under İ.DH 859/68776 from April 20, 1883 (Rumi: N.08.1299) page 1 Umur-­ı­ nafia­ komisyonunun­ işbu­ mazbatası­ evrak-­ı­ müteferriʻasıyla­ Meclis-­i­ âcizânemizde­mutalaa­olundu.­Hulasa-­i­meâlinden­müsteban­olacağı­üzre­Drama­ Sancağı’nda­vaki­Kavala­Kazası’nda­sur­haricinde­olup­furuhtu­muktezâ-yı­irade­ ­i­ seniyyeden­ bulunan­ malumü’l-hudud­ kumluk­ mahallerden­ Maliye­ Nezareti’nin­ melfuf­takririne­merbut­pusulada­kıtaʻât­ve­zirâʻları­ve­mütefevvizlerinin­isim­ve­ şöhretleri­ve­teferruʻâtı­gösterilen­on­altı­kıta­mahallin­mukaddemâ­vali­ve­meclis­ ­i­ vilayet­ marifetiyle­ talibleri­ uhdelerine­ tefvizleri­ bi’l-icrâ­ hücec-i­ lâzimesi­ hükümet-i­ şerʻiyye­ tarafından­ ve­ on­ bir­ kıta­ mahallin­ tapu­ senedâtı­ dahi­ Mülga­ Defterhâne’den­ita­olunmuş­ve­yüzlük­altın­yüz­kuruşa­olarak­cemʻan­üç­yüz­elli­ yedi­bin­dokuz­yüz­seksen­yedi­kuruş­muʻaccelesi­seksen­altı­ve­yedi­seneleri­cetvellerine­idhâlen­Hazine-­i­celilece­ve­diğer­kısmı­dahi­defterhane­idaresince­ahz­ve­ istifa­kılınmış­olduğundan­ve­ber-­vech-i­muharrer­vaktiyle­muameleleri­icra­olunarak­ aradan­ hayli­ zaman­ geçmiş­ idiğinden­ nezaret-­i­ müşârun­ ileyhânın­ işarı­ vechle­ ihalelerinin­ tasdiki­ umur-­ı­ tabiiyyeden­ bulunduğu­ tezekkür­ edilmiş­ ve­ ol­ vechle­ icrâ-yı­ icabı­ hususunun­ nezaret-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ havalesi­ miyane-­i­ âcizânemizde­ dahi­ bi’t-tasvib­ evrak-­ı­ mezkure­ takımıyla­ leffen­ takdim­ kılınmış­ olmakla­kâtıbe-i­ahvalde­emr­u­ferman­hazret-­i­veliyyü’l-emr­efendimizindir. Fi­7­Receb­sene[12]98­fi­24­Mayıs­sene­[12]97

Appendix 177 The report/memorandum and related documents of the Commission of Affairs of Public Works are discussed in our council. As it is clear from the summary of the report, there is a bordered/defined land named Kumluk for sale by decree outside the town of Kavala, subject to the Sanjak of Drama. The attached report of the Ministry of Finance identifies units (plots?), sizes, tenants, names, titles and other details of the land which were previously contracted out to the applicants by the governor and the council of the province. The necessary documents were sent by the government, including 11 title deeds by the Mülga Defterhâne (type of register which presents the list of the land that the state no longer owns). The applicants paid 357987 kurush in cash with hundred-gold and hundredkurush bills, which were transferred to the fiscal charts of the years 1871–1872 by the Central Treasury. Other part of the payment was collected and secured by the Registry. As it is written, since the procedure was completed at one time, aforesaid Ministry reminds that the procurement should be approved as part of the natural process. The aforesaid Ministry is instructed (in charge) to deal with the issue, and our humble council undertakes to present the approval of the document and the enclosed files. We will comply with the orders and edicts of Your Highness. June 5, 1881 İ.DH 859/68776 page 3 Devletli efendim hazretleri Drama­ Sancağı’nda­ vaki­ Kavala­ Kazası’nda­ sur­ haricinde­ olup­ furuhtu­ muktezâ-yı­irade-­i­seniyyeden­bulunan­malumü’l-hudud­kumluk­mahallerden­on­ altı­ kıta­ mahallin­ mukaddemâ­ vilayetçe­ talibleri­ uhdelerine­ tefvîzleri­ bi’l-icrâ­ hücec-i­ lazimesi­ hukümet-i­ şerʻiyye­ tarafından­ ve­ on­ bir­ kıta­ mahallin­ tapu­ senedâtı­dahi­Mülga­Defterhâne’den­ita­olunmuş­ve­muʻaccelesi­olan­üç­yüz­elli­ yedi­bin­bu­kadar­kuruş­seksen­altı­ve­yedi­cetvellerine­idhâlen­hazinece­ve­diğer­ kısmı­dahi­Defterhane­İdaresi’nce­ahz­ve­istifa­edilmiş­olduğundan­bunların­tasdik-­i­ihaleleri­için­icrâ-yı­icabı­hususunun­Maliye­Nezareti’ne­havalesi­hakkında­ Umur-­ı­ Nafia­ Komisyonu’nun­ mazbatası­ Meclis-­i­ Mahsus-­ı­ Vükelâ’dan­ fi­ 7­ Receb­sene­[12]98­tarihinde­tezyilen­ve­melfufâtıyla­maʻan­maruz-­ı­huzur-­ı­âlî­ kılınmış­ve­henüz­irade-­i­seniyyesi­şeref­sadır­olup­da­muamelesi­icra­olunmuş­ idiğinden­ tesri-­i­ muamelesini­ müstedi­ verilen­ arzuhal­ mezkur­ mazbata-­i­ müzeyyele­ suretiyle­ maʻan­ arz­ ve­ takdim­ olunmuş­ olmakla­ arz-­ı­ sabık­ üzerine­ her­ne­vechle­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­mülukane­müteʻallik­ve­şeref­sudur­buyurulur­ ise­ mantuk-­ı­ münifi­ infaz­ edileceği­ beyanıyla­ tezkire-­i­ senaveri­ terkim­ olundu efendim. Fi­7­Ramazan­sene­[12]99­fi­[12]98 Said Maruz-­ı­çâker-i­kemineleridir­ki,

178

Appendix

Reside-­i­ dest-­i­ tazim­ olan­ işbu­ tezkire-­i­ sâmiye-i­ Vekâlet-penâhîleri­ ile­ melfuf­ mazbata­sureti­ve­arzuhal­manzur-­ı­âlî­buyurulmu­ve­ber-­vech-i­istizan­taliblerine­ satılmış­ olan­ mahallerin­ usulü­ vechle­ tefvîzi­ muamelâtının­ ifası­ hususuna­ irade-­i­seniyye-­i­hazret-­i­padişahi­müteʻallik­ve­şeref­sudur­buyurulurak­mezkur­ suret­ve­arzuhal­iade­kılınmış­olmakla­ol­babda­emr­u­ferman­hazret-­i­veliyyü’l­ emrindir. Fi­8­Ramazan­sene­[12]99­fi­11­Temmuz­sene­[12]98 [İmza] Adliye ve Mezahib Nezaret-i celilesine 23 Devletli efendim hazretleri Selanik­Vilayet-­i­celilesine­tabi­Drama­Sancağı­dahilinde­Kavaliye­bir­saat­buʻd­ mesafesinde­kain­Karaorman­Karyesi’nde­kilise­ve­medfen­bulunmadığı­cihetle­ karye-­i­mezkurenin­yüz­haneden­mütecâviz­Rum­ve­Ortodoks­ahalisi­icra-­yı­ayin­ ve defn-i emvat hususunda bir saat kadar uzak bulunan mezkur Kavala Kasabası’na­ azimetle­ müşkilat­ ve­ meşakkat­ çekmekde­ olduklarından­ bir­ cihetinde­ tûlen­ kırk­ ve­ arzan­ yirmi­ ve­ kadden­ on­ zirâʻ­ olmak­ ve­ yirmi­ pençere­ şâmil­ bulunmak­ üzre­ Aya­ Atnaş­ namında­ müceddeden­ bir­ bab­ kilise­ inşa­ kılınmak­ ve­ bâkîsi­ mezarlık­ ittihaz­ olunmak­ için­ ol­ civarda­ kain­ olup­ üzerinde­ kadim­bir­kilise­harabesi­görünen­arazi-­i­emiriyeden­mikdar-­ı­kâfî­arazi­terk­ve­ ihsan­ buyurulması­ istirhamında­ bulunmakla­ saye-­i­ ihsan-­vâye-i­ hazret-­i­ padişahiye­ ahali-­i­ merkume­ kullarının­ teshil-­i­ ihtiyâcâtıyla­ veliyy-­i­ nimet-­i­ bî­ minnetimiz­ şevketli­ padişahım­ efendimiz­ hazretlerini­ temâdî-i­ eyyâm-ı­ ömr­ ve­ afiyet­ve­tezayüd-i­iclal­ve­şevket-i­mülukaneleri­hakkında­bir­kat­daha­daʻavat-ı­ hayriye­isticlab­olunmak­üzre­ber-­minval-i­maruz­karye-­i­mezkure­civarıda­kain­ arazi-­i­ merkume-­i­ emiriyeden­ münasib­ mikdarının­ tahsis­ ve­ ihsanıyla­ beraber­ kilise-­yi­mezkurun­bâlâda­zikr­olunan­tûl­ve­arz­ve­kad­mikdarında­olarak­binâ­ ve­inşâsına­ruhsatı­havi­iktizâ­eden­emr-­i­âlînin­şeref­suduru­babında­delalet­ve­ himme-­i­ aliyye-­i­ cenab-­ı­ nezaret-­penâhîleri­ bîdiriğ­ buyurulması­ niyaz­ ve­ istirhamına­mübâderet­kılındı­ol­babda­ve­herhalde­emr­u­ferman­hazret-­i­men­ lehü’l-emrindir. Fi­10­Rebiülâhir­sene­[1]302­ve­fi­14­Kanunusani­sene­[1]300 Avakim­Patrik-­i­Rum­İstanbul­ve­tevâbiʻihâ İ.DH 859/68776 page 3 Your Great and Wealthy Highness. There is a bordered/defined land named Kumluk for sale by decree outside the town of Kavala, subject to the Sanjak of Drama. About this land, official documents related to 16 plots (units) of land restricted to the applicants of the province, were to be sent by the government, while the title deeds of other 11 plots (units) were dispatched by the Mülga Defterhâne. They paid over 357000 kurush in cash with hundred-gold and hundred-kurush bills, which were transferred to the fiscal charts of the years 1871–1872 by the Central Treasury. Another part of

Appendix 179 the payment was collected and secured by the Registry. The Commission of Public Affairs dispatched a report that appointed the Ministry of Finance to deal with the procedure. Together with the attached and enclosed documents, the report was debated in the Council of Special Representatives on June 5, 1881. As it is demanded in a petition, a new edict accelerating the procedure is presented for the knowledge of the Council. We will execute all orders and wishes, magnificent and proper to Your Highness. Declaring at this point, so, this exalted report is written, Sir. August 3, 1881 Said Your humble servant requests that an imperial edict is prepared in accordance with the respectfully arranged notification of the ministers, the copy of enclosed report and the petition on the issue related to contracting the land to the appli-

cants in accordance with the procedure. Aforesaid copy and petition are returned

to the [where they belong].

Your Highness’s orders and commands on the issue.

July 23, 1182

[Sign]

To the Ministry of Justice and Religion

23

Your sovereign highness.

Since there is no church and cemetery in the village of Karaorman, located near

the town of Kavala, subject to Sanjak of Drama in the Province of Selanik, the

Greek Orthodox community of the aforesaid village, which consists of a hundred

households, are having difficulties reaching the town of Kavala, an hour away from their village, for religious purposes and funerals. It appears there are remnants of an old church on state-owned land in the village. We desire to build a church under the name of Aya Atnaş (Agios Atanasios) that will measure 30 m long, 15 m wide, and 7.5 m high, with 20 windows, and build a cemetery on the aforesaid land. Therefore, we request to reserve a sufficient plot from the stateowned land, and grant it to the community as a sign of safeguarding and simplifying the needs of the aforesaid community, who pray for health to the ongoing life of the Sultan’s benefactor highness, a glory to his greatness and majesty, and attracting good things by his benevolent deeds. We beg your Ministry for the guidance and assistance on asking for permission to allocate and grant a sufficient parcel from the aforesaid state-owned land in the village, and to build the aforesaid church with length, width, and height as specified above. We will fulfill with the orders and edicts of Your Highness. January 26, 1885 Avakim The Rum Patriarch of Istanbul and environs.

180

Appendix

20  Registered in BOA under İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 plan from April 30, 1905 (Hicri: S.24.1323) page 4 Şura-yı­Devlet Mülkiye Dairesi Aded:­4 Kavala­Kasabası’nda­Çaylar­nam­mevkide­iki­aded­çan­kulesini­havi­Aya­Pavlo­ namında­ bir­ bab­ kilise­ ile­ bir­ metropolidhâne­ ve­ papas­ ve­ hademe­ odaları­ inşasına­ ruhsat­ itası­ Rum­ patrikliğinden­ bâ-takrir­ istidâ­ olunması­ üzerine­ Selanik­Vilayetince­icra­kılınan­tahkikatı­havi­evrakın­takdimiyle­ifa-­yı­muktezâsı­ ifadesini­ mutazammın­ Adliye­ ve­ Mezahib­ Nezareti’nin­ 3­ Zilkade­ sene­ [1]322­ tarih­ve­altı­yüz­altmış­numaralı­tezkiresi­melfufâtı­Divan-­ı­Hümayun­Kalemi’nin­ müzekkiresiyle­ Şura-yı­ Devlet’e­ havale­ buyurulmakla­ Mülkiye­ Dairesi’nden­ kırâat­olundu. ­ Meâllerine­ nazaran­ Kavala­ Kasabası’nın­ Çaylar­ Mevkiinde­ teba-­i­ Devlet-­i­ Aliyye’den­ Şekerci­ Andon­ veled-­i­ Panayot­ uhdesinde­ mukayyed­ ve­ senevî­ kırk­ kuruş­bedel-­i­öşre­merbut­arsa­ve­müştemilât-ı­sâireyi­havi­üç­bab­hane­zemini­ ile­ittisâlindeki­senevî­elli­sekiz­buçuk­kuruş­bedel-­i­öşürlü­arâzî-i­mîriyyeden­bir­ kıta­arsa­üzerine­kilise­inşasına­müsaade­itası­istida­olunan­otuz­dört­metre­tûl­ ve­yirmi­iki­metre­arz­ve­aynı­irtifâʻda­bulunacak­iki­aded­çan­kulesiyle­beraber­ yirmi­altı­buçuk­metre­kaddinde­kargir­bir­kilise­ile­on­sekiz­metre­seksen­santimetre­tûl­ve­on­üç­metre­arz­ve­irtifâʻında­bir­metropolithane­ve­yirmi­metre­ve­ kırk­santimetre­tûl­ve­altı­metre­arz­ve­beş­metre­irtifâʻında­kezâlik­kargir­olarak­ iki­rahib­odasının­inşâlarında­mahzur­olmadığı­ve­bunların­masarıf-ı­inşaiyesi­ olan­yedi­yüz­bin­kuruşun­kilise­sandığından­tesviye­edileceği­ve­kasaba-­i­mezkurede­sekiz­bini­mütecaviz­Rum­ahali­bulunduğu­anlaşılmıştır. ­ İktizâsı­ lede’l-müzâkere­ eğerçi­ şimdiye­ kadar­ metropolid­ merkezi­ olmayan­ Kavala­ Kasabası’nda­ bir­ metropolidhâne­ tesis­ ve­ inşası­ cây-ı­ mutâlaʻa­ ise­ de­ Rum­ patrikliğinin­ takriri­ münderecâtı­ İskeçe­ Metropolidlerinin­ vezâif-i­ mevduasını­ifa­zımnında­ikide­bir­de­Kavala’ya­azimete­mecbur­olmasından­naşi­ orada­ ikametine­ mahsus­ böyle­ bir­ dairenin­ inşası­ lüzumunu­ mutazammın­ olup­ Adliye­ve­Mezâhib­Nezareti­komisyon-­ı­mahsusunca­dahi­sâlifü’l-beyan­kilisenin­ inşası­ makrun-­ı­ müsaade-i­ seniyye-­i­ cenab-­ı­ padişahi­ buyurulduğu­ halde­ metropolidhanenin­ inşasında­ beis­ olmadığı­ dermeyan­ edilmesine­ nazaran­ zikr­ olunan­ metropolidhanenin­ tesisinde­ mahzur­ görünmediğinden­ gerek­ bunun­ ve­ gerek­mezkur­kilise­ile­rahib­odalarının­ol­vechle­inşası­hususlarına­bi’l-istizân­ irade-­i­ seniyye-­i­ hazret-­i­ padişahi­ şeref­ sudur­ buyurulduğu­ halde­ zikr­ olunan­ ziralar­ mikdarı­ tecâvüz­ edilmemek­ ve­ masarıf-ı­ inşâiye­ ber­ minval-­i­ muharrer­ tesviye­olunup­bu­vesile­ile­kimseden­cebren­akçe­ahzi­gibi­hâlât-ı­gayr-­i­marziyye­ vukua­ getirilmemek­ ve­ ebniye-­i­ mezkurenin­ inşa­ olunacakları­ arsalar­ için­ tahsis­ edilmiş­ olan­ bedel-­i­ öşr­ karar-­ı­ mahsusuna­ tevfikan­ on­ misline­ iblâğ­

Appendix 181 edilmek­üzre­kuyud-­ı­lâzime­ve­mutadenin­derciyle­ruhsatı­havi­emr-­i­âlî­ısdarı­ hususunun­ Divan-­ı­ Hümayun­ Kalemi’ne­ havalesi­ ve­ Adliye­ ve­ Mezahib­ ve­ Dahiliye­ ve­ Maliye­ nezaretlerine­ de­ malumat­ itası­ tezekkür­ ve­ ol­ babdaki­ keşf­ defteriyle­resim­leffen­takdim­kılındı­ol­babda­emr­u­ferman­hazret-­i­men­lehü’l­ emrindir. Fi­9­Muharrem­sene­1323­ve­fi­3­Mart­sene­[1]321 [Şura-yı­Devlet­azalarının­mühürleri] İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 page 4 The Council of State The Department of Civil Service Copy: 4 The province of Selanik carried out a survey concerning a request for permission to build a church with two bell towers under the name of Aya Pavlo, a metropolitan building, and cells for priests and servants at the site named Çaylar in the town of Kavala. According to documents containing the details of the survey, the Ministry of Justice and Religion sent an enclosed report, dated January 9, 1905 and numbered 606, and a writing prepared by the Editorial Office of Imperial Council to the Department of Civil Service. The report states: there is a row of plots of land at the location named Çaylar in the town of Kavala; the first plot is owned by Şekerci Andon, son of Panayot, who leased it for 40 kurush annually; the second plot contains ground for three houses and their extensions; the third plot is state land worth 58.5 kurush annual rent. Regarding the request, there is no obstacle to building a 34-meter-long, 22-meter-wide, 26.5-meter-high stone church together with two 22-meter-high bell towers, and 18.80-meter-long, 13-meter-wide metropolitan building, and 20.40-meter-long, 6-meter-wide, 5-meter-high stone rooms for priests. It has been understood that the total cost of building these structures is 700000 kurush, which will be met by the treasury of the church, and there are 8000 Rums living in the aforesaid town. Although the town of Kavala is not a metropolitan center, erecting a building for the metropolitan4 (diocesan bishop of ecclesiastic province) is the subject of discussion and debate. The Rum Patriarch’s request makes it clear that since the metropolitan of the town of Iskeçe constantly has to visit the town of Kavala to perform his duties, they need a special building for their residence. The council of Ministry of Justice and Religion permitted the construction of the aforesaid church, and confirmed that there are no obstacles to the construction of a building for the metropolitan. Therefore, permission is granted to build the aforesaid building for the metropolitan, the church, and the rooms for priests on the conditions that identified sizes of the aforesaid buildings are not exceeded, no one is pressured to donate money and situations which are not approved by the consent of people are avoided. Additionally, the price for the plots of land allocated for aforesaid buildings will have to be fixed ten times more. The Editorial Office of Imperial Council is in charged with preparing the license on which the conditions

182

Appendix

are written, and informing the Ministries of Justice and Religion, Interior Affairs,

and Finance about the issue. All of these details are discussed, and the building’s

project, the attached registers and plans are presented. On the issue, it ultimately

depends on the wishes of Your Highness.

March 16, 1905

[The seals of the members of Council of State]

İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 page 5 Babıali Daire-i Sadaret Amedî-i­Divan-­ı­Hümayun 306 Devletli efendim hazretleri Adliye­ve­Mezâhib­Nezaret-­i­celilesinin­Şura-yı­Devlet’e­havale­olunan­tezkiresi­ üzerine­Mülkiye­Dairesi’nden­tanzim­ve­leffen­arz­ve­takdim­kılınan­mazbatada­ Kavala­ Kasabası’nda­ Çaylar­ nam­ mevkide­ teba-­i­ Devlet-­i­ aliyyeden­ Şekerci­ Andon­ veled-­i­ Panayot­ uhdesinde­ mukayyed­ ve­ senevî­ kırk­ kuruş­ bedel-­i­ öşre­ merbut­ arsa­ ve­ müştemilat-ı­ sâireyi­ havi­ üç­ bab­ hane­ zemini­ ile­ ittisalindeki­ senevî­ elli­ sekiz­ buçuk­ kuruş­ bedel-­i­ öşürlü­ arazi-­i­ emiriyeden­ bir­ kıta­ arsa­ üzerine­iki­aded­çan­kulesini­müştemil­bir­bab­kilise­ile­bir­metropolidhane­ve­ papas­ ve­ hademe­ odaları­ inşasına­ ruhsat­ itası­ Rum­ Patrikliği’nden­ istida­ olunmuş­ ve­ mezkur­ kilisenin­ otuz­ dört­ metre­ tul­ ve­ yirmi­ iki­ metre­ arz­ ve­ aynı­ irtifâʻda­ iki­ aded­ çan­ kulesiyle­ beraber­ yirmi­ altı­ buçuk­ metre­ kaddinde­ ve­ metropolidhanenin on sekiz metre seksen santimetre tul ve on üç metre arz ve irtifâʻında­ve­iki­baba­rahib­ve­hademe­odalarının­yirmi­metre­kırk­santimetre­ tûl­ ve­ altı­ metre­ arz­ ve­ beş­ metre­ irtifâʻında­ kargir­ olarak­ inşa­ ve­ sarfı­ iktizâ­ eden­yedi­yüz­bin­kuruşun­kilise­sandığından­tesviye­ve­ifa­olunacağı­ve­kasaba-­i­ mezkurede­ sekiz­ bini­ mütecâviz­ Rum­ cemaati­ olup­ kilise­ ile­ müteferriʻâtının­ inşalarında­ bir­ mahzur­ olmadığı­ anlaşılmış­ olduğundan­ zikr­ olunan­ zirâʻlar­ mikdarı­ tecavüz­ edimemek­ ve­ masarıf-ı­ inşâiye­ ber­ minval-­i­ muharrer­ tesviye­ olunarak­ bu­ vesile­ ile­ kimseden­ cebren­ akçe­ ahzi­ gibi­ hâlât-ı­ gayr-­i­ marziyye­ vukuʻa­getirilmemek­ve­mezkur­mebânînin­inşa­olunacakları­arsalar­için­tahsis­ edilmiş­ olan­ bedel-­i­ öşr­ karar-­ı­ mahsusuna­ tevfikan­ on­ misline­ iblâğ­ edilmek­ üzre­kuyud-­ı­lâzime­ve­mutadenin­derciyle­ruhsatı­havi­emr-­i­âlî­ısdarı­hususunun­ Divan-­ı­ Hümayun­ Kalemi’ne­ havalesi­ ve­ nezaret-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâ­ ile­ Dahiliye­ ve­ Maliye­ Nezaret-­i­ celilelerine­ malumat­ itası­ lüzumu­ gösterilmiş­ olmakla­ ol­ babda­ her­ ne­ vechle­ irade-­i­ seniyye-­i­ cenab-­ı­ padişahi­ şeref­ sudur­ buyurulur­ ise­ mantuk-­ı­ âlîsi­ infaz­ edileceği­ beyanıyla­ tezkire-­i­ senâverî­ terkim­ kılındı­efendim. Fi­29­Muharrem­sene­[1]323­fi­23­Mart­sene­[1]321 Sadrazam Ferid Maruz-­ı­çâker-i­kemineleridir­ki,

Appendix 183 Reside-­i­ dest-­i­ tazim­ olup­ melfuflarıyla­ manzur-­ı­ âlî­ buyurulan­ işbu­ tezkire-­i­

sâmiye-i­Sadaret-­penâhîleri­üzerine­mucebince­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­hilafet-­

penâhî­ şeref­ müteʻallik­ buyurulmuş­ olmakla­ ol­ babda­ emr­ u­ ferman­ hazret-­i­

veliyyü’l-emrindir.

Fi­24­Safer­sene­[1]323­fi­16­Nisan­sene­[1]321

Serkatib-­i­Hazret-­i­şehriyârî­Tahsin

Sublime Porte The Office of Grand Vizierat Imperial Council 306 Your sovereign highness. In the report prepared and presented by the Editorial Office of the Imperial Council prepared and presented as a response to the report of the Ministry of Justice and Religion delivered to the Council of State, it is stated that there is a row of plots of land at the location named Çaylar in the town of Kavala; the first plot is owned by Şekerci Andon, son of Panayot, who leased it for 40 kurush annually; the second plot contains ground for three houses and their extensions; the third plot is state land worth 58.5 kurush annual rent. Regarding the request, there is no obstacle to building a 34-meter-long, 22-meter-wide, 26.5-meter-high stone church together with two 22-meter-high bell towers, and 18.80-meter-long, 13-meter-wide metropolitan building, and 20.40-meter-long, 6-meter-wide, 5-meter-high stone rooms for priests. It has been understood that the total cost of building these structures is 700000 kurush, which will be met by the treasury of the church, and there are 8000 Rums living in the aforesaid town. Since there is no obstacle to building the church and the annexed buildings, permission is granted to build them on the conditions that the stated dimensions of the aforesaid structures are not exceeded, that the building cost is met as mentioned above without pressuring anybody to donate money and that situations that are not approved by the consent of people are avoided. Additionally, the price of the plots of land allocated for the aforesaid buildings will have to be evaluated ten times more. The Editorial Office of Imperial Council is charged with preparing the license in which the conditions are written, and informing the Ministries of Justice and Religion, Interior Affairs, and Finance about the issue. We will execute all orders and wishes, magnificent and proper to Your Highness. Declaring this point, so, this exalted report is written, Sir. April 5, 1905 Grand Vizier Ferid Your humble servant requests that the caliph’s order has been delivered in accordance with the report of Grand Vizierate. On the issue, it ultimately depends on the wishes of Your Highness. April 30, 1905

184

Appendix

Tahsin The head of Secretary

21  Registered in BOA under DH.MKT 1128/85 from October 18, 1906 (Hicri: Ş.29.1324) page 1 Babıali Daire-­i­Sadaret-­i­Uzmâ Mektubi Kalemi Aded:­2246 Tezkire-i maruza suretidir. Maarif­ Nezaret-­i­ celilesinin­ Şura-yı­ Devlet’e­ havale­ olunan­ tezkiresi­ üzerine­ Mülkiye­ Dairesi’nden­ kaleme­ alınıp­ leffen­ arz­ ve­ takdim­ kılınan­ mazbatada­ Drama­ Sancağı’na­ mülhak­ Kavala­ Kasabası’nın­ Yeni­ Mahallesi’nde­ vaki­ olup­ Musevî­Cemâʻâti­muteberânından­Mişon­Efendi­tarafından­cemaat-­i­merkumeye­ terk­ ve­ teberruʻ­ edilen­ hanenin­ zükûr­ ve­ inâs­ etfal-­i­ Museviye’ye­ mahsus­ ve­ bâ-ruhsat-­ı­ resmiye­ mukaddemâ­ küşad­ edilmiş­ olan­ iki­ mektebin­ yerine­ kaim­ olmak­üzre­mekteb­ittihâzına­ruhsat­itası­istidâ­olunmuş­ve­sâlifü’z-zikr­hanenin­ arzan­ on­ altı­ ve­ irtifâʻan­ on­ iki­ metre­ altmış­ santimetre­ ve­ tûlen­ on­ beş­ buçuk­ metre­ve­üç­katdan­ibaret­olup­tervic-­i­istidâda­mahzur­olmadığı­işar-ı­mahalliyeden­ anlaşılmış­ olmakla­ mezkur­ hanenin­ mebnî­ bulunduğu­ arsanın­ kıymet-i­ muhammenesine­nazaran­binde­otuz­para­hesabıyla­takdiri­icab­eden­yedi­buçuk­ kuruş­ bedel-­i­ öşr­ on­ misli­ olan­ yetmiş­ beş­ kuruşa­ bi’l-iblâğ­ mukâtaʻâ-i­ zemin­ tahsis­ olunmak­ ve­ hanenin­ zemin­ katında­ bulunan­ dükkanlar­ vergi­ ve­ rüsum-ı­ sâireye­tabi­tutulmak­ve­hânenin­ebad-­ı­hazırası­tağyir­olunmamak­üzre­ruhsatı­ havi­emr-­i­âlî­ısdârı­hususunun­Divan-­ı­Hümayun­Kalemi’ne­havalesi­ve­nezaret-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ tebliğat-ı­ lazimenin­ ifası­ lüzumu­ gösterilmiş­ olmakla­ ol­ babda­her­ne­vechle­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­hilafet-­penâhi­şeref­sünuh­ve­sudur­ buyurulur­ise­mantuk-­ı­münifi­infaz­edileceği­beyanıyla­tezkire-­i­senâverî­terkim­ kılındnı­efendim. Fi­2­Receb­sene­[1]324­ve­fi­9­Ağustos­sene­[1]322 Sadrazam Ferid Şeref­sâdır­olan­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­padişahiyi­mübelliğ­hâmiş­suretidir.

Reside-­i­ dest-­i­ tazim­ olup­ melfuflarıyla­ manzur-­ı­ âlî­ buyurulan­ işbu­ tezkire-­i­

sâmiye-i­Sadaret-­penâhîleri­üzerine­mucebince­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­hilafet-­

penâhî­ şeref­ sudur­ buyurulmuş­ olmakla­ ol­ babda­ emr­ u­ ferman­ hazret-­i­

veliyyü’l-emrindir.

Fi­22­Receb­sene­[1]324­fi­28­Ağustos­sene­[1]322

Serkatib-­i­Hazret-­i­Şehriyârî­Tahsin

Aslına­mutabıkdır­Sadık.

Appendix 185 Suretleri­bâlâda­muharrer­tezkire-­i­maruza­ve­şeref­sâdır­olan­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­ hazret-­i­ padaşahîyi­ mübelliğ­ hamiş­ mucebince­ tasdir­ olunan­ emr-­i­ âlî­ Maarif­ Nezaret-­i­celilesine­isrâ­ve­Maliye­Nezaret-­i­celilesine­de­malumat­ita­kılınmakla­ Dahiliye­Nezaret-­i­celilesinden­dahi­ifâ-yı­muktezâsına­himmet­buyurulmak. 20­Şaban­sene­[1]324­fi­25­Eylül­sene­[1]322 Sublime Porte The Office of Grand Vizierate The Editorial Department Item Number: 2246 The copy of the announced report. In accordance with the report of Ministry of Education delivered to the Council of State, the Department of Civic Service prepared and presented an enclosed report, in which [it is stated that] Mişon Efendi, a respected member of the Jewish community from the New neighborhood in the town of Kavala, subject to the Sanjak of Drama, requested to bequeath and endow a house to the aforementioned community to establish a school for female and male children under the condition that it would replace the two previous unofficial schools. He requested an official permission to open the school. The aforementioned house is 16 m wide, 12.60 m high and 15.5 m long; it is a three-story house. It has been informed by a local statement that the house has a predisposition to increase the value of the properties in the area. In accordance with the appraised value of the land plot upon which the aforementioned house is built, it would be rented out under agricultural tax: it has been estimated that at the rate of 30 per thousand, it has a rent value of 7.5 kurush, then its tenfold price is 75 kurush for one-tenth charge. The shops on the ground floor of the house are subject to various current taxes; and it is not allowed to exceed the size of the already identified house. Observing these conditions, it is necessary to request an official permission from the Department of Imperial Council, and to notify the aforementioned Ministry. On this issue, the final decision is up to the [reserved for] Caliph’s will. Accordingly, it will be executed. Thus, this exalted report is written, sir. August 22, 1906 Grand Vizier Ferid The copy of the note at the bottom of the delivered imperial command. The Caliph’s order has been delivered in accordance with the report of the Grand Vizierate. On the issue, it ultimately depends on the wishes of Your Highness. September 11, 1906 Tahsin The head of Secretary Same as original

186

Appendix

The edict prepared in accordance with the report that its copy is recorded above and the note at the bottom of the delivered imperial command has to be delivered to the Ministry of Education. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance and Interior Affairs must be informed about the issue. October 9, 1906 DH.MKT 1128/85 page 2 Dahiliye Mektubi Kalemi Evrak­numarası:­2246/28 Tesvidi­tarihi:­30­Eylül­sene­[1]322 Tarih-­i­tebyizi:­Selh-­i­Şaban­sene­[1]324­fi­4­Teşrinievvel­sene­[1]322 Selanik­Vilayet-­i­celilesine Kavala­ Kasabası’nın­ Yeni­ Mahallesi’nde­ kain­ olup­ Musevî­ Cemâʻâti­ muteberânından­Mişon­Efendi­tarafından­cemaat-­i­merkumeye­terk­ve­teberruʻ­ edilen­hanenin­zükûr­ve­inâs­etfal-­i­Museviye’ye­mahsus­ve­bâ-ruhsat-­ı­resmiye­ mukaddemâ­ küşad­ edilmiş­ olan­ iki­ mektebin­ yerine­ kaim­ olmak­ üzre­ mekteb­ ittihâzına­ ruhsat­ itası­ istidâ­ olunmuş­ ve­ sâlifü’z-zikr­ hanenin­ arzan­ on­ altı­ ve­ irtifâʻan­on­iki­metre­altmış­santimetre­ve­tûlen­on­beş­buçuk­metre­ve­üç­katdan­ ibaret­ olup­ tervic-­i­ istidâda­ mahzur­ olmadığı­ işar-ı­ mahalliyeden­ anlaşılmış­ olmakla­ mezkur­ hanenin­ mebnî­ bulunduğu­ arsanın­ kıymet-i­ muhammenesine­ nazaran­ binde­ otuz­ para­ hesabıyla­ takdiri­ icab­ eden­ yedi­ buçuk­ kuruş­ bedel-­i­ öşr­on­misli­olan­yetmiş­beş­kuruşa­bi’l-iblâğ­mukâtaʻâ-i­zemin­tahsis­olunmak­ ve­hanenin­zemin­katında­bulunan­dükkanlar­vergi­ve­rüsum-ı­sâireye­tabi­tutulmak­ ve­ hânenin­ ebad-­ı­ hazırası­ tağyir­ olunmamak­ üzre­ ruhsatı­ havi­ emr-­i­ âlî­ ısdârı­ hususuna­ Maarif­ Nezaret-­i­ celilesinedn­ vaki­ olan­ işar­ ve­ Şura-yı­ Devlet­ Mülkiye­Dairesi’nden­verilen­karar­üzerine­bi’l-istizân­irade-­i­seniyye-­i­cenab-­ı­ padişahi­ şeref­ müteʻallik­ buyurularak­ mucebince­ tasdir­ olunan­ emr-­i­ âlî­ nezaret-­i­ müşârun-ileyhâya­ isrâve­ Maliye­ Nezaret-­i­ celilesine­ de­ malumat­ ita­ kılındığı­ taraf-­ı­ sâmî-i­ Sadaret-­penâhîlerinden­ 25­ Eylül­ sene­ [1]322­ tarihinde­ tebliğ­buyurulmuştur.­Ber-­mantuk-ı­emr­u­ferman-­ı­hümayun-ı­cenab-­ı­mülukane­ ifa-­yı­muktezası­babında. The Secretary of Interior Affairs The number of document: 2246/28 The date of rough draft: September 13, 1906 The date of clean copy: October 18, 1906 To the Province of Selanik Mişon Efendi, a respected member of the Jewish community from the New neighborhood in the town of Kavala, subject to the Sanjak of Drama, requested to bequeath and endow a house to the aforementioned community to establish a school for female and male children under condition that it would replace the

Appendix 187 two previous unofficial schools. He requested an official permission to open the school. The aforementioned house is 16 m wide, 12.60 m high and 15.5 m long; it is a three-story house. It has been informed by a local statement that the house has a predisposition to increase the value of the properties in the area. In accordance with the appraised value of the land plot upon which the aforementioned house is built, it would be rented out under agricultural tax: it has been estimated that at the rate of 30 per thousand, it has a rent value of 7.5 kurush, then its tenfold price is 75 kurush for one-tenth charge. The shops on the ground floor of the house are subject to various current taxes; and it is not allowed to exceed the size of the already identified house. On October 8, 1906, it has been declared by the Grand Vizierate that observing these conditions, an imperial order in accordance with the instructions from the Ministry of Education and decisions from the Department of Imperial Council has been delivered to the Ministry of Finance. We will comply with the orders and edicts of Your Highness.

22  OOZ Fond no. 43/Arch.Un.4 from year 1595 (Отдел Ориенталски Збирки (НБКМ) Фонд но. 43/Арх.Ед.4) (Hicri: S.Ra.1004) Defter-i nafaka-i mücrimân ve üserâ ki der kalita-i Kale-i Kavala bad ve keşidend­vâcib­Muharrem­Safer­ve­Rebiülevvel­sene­erbaʻa­ve­elf. Ali Nasuh Nasuh Abdullah Mehmed Ali Budak Abdullah Hüseyin­Rıza Sinan Abdullah Davud Abdullah Dimo Nikoli Esob Yuvan Matyo Nikola Nikola Françesko Koroşlu­Kosta Luhya­Andriye Marino­Petro Andriya Dimo Kosta Yani Marino Françesko Oseb Yuvan

Ebu Bekir b. Abdullah Mustafa b. Abdullah Hamza Hasan Hasan Abdullah Mehmed Abdullah Memi Abdullah Rıdvan­Abdullah Marko Frençesko Kosta­Polo Mahtasan Esol Marino Kosta Halorşo­Kosta Medaşa­Yuvan Tariz Yuvan Marino­Petro Haylo Dimo Fotni Duka Marino Yani

Ahmed b. Abdullah Hasan b. Abdullah Veli­Mustafa Kanber Abdullah Hüseyin Nasuh Mercan Abdullah Yani Kosta Atval­Petro Medina Kosta Nikola­Penço Foti Dimo Mikel Yuvan Yuvan Roto Asman Kosta Yadimo Yuvan Marko Halormo Vali­Andriya Kosta Mandiroso

Geyvan Abdullah Yahya b. Abdullah Cafer Abdullah Ömer­Nat Katil Abdullah Murad Nasuh Marko Yuvan Kosta Andriye Matpo Medina Polo­Yani Todor Andriye Korso Toman Petro­Todor Dimo Kosta Esmale Kosta Esman Andriya Tomaş­Frençesko

Sinan Ali Mustafa­Veli İbrahim­Haydar Bekir­Veli İbrahim­Veli Diğer­Murad­Abdullah Kolo Yuvan Marto Yuvan Korsu Yuvan Asman Medina Marino Françesko Melaned Andriye Andriye Dimo Laşa­Holormo Dimo Kosta Lede­Kosta Kol Yuvan

Cemʻan­88­neferen Dergah-­ı­felek­medar­ve­bargah-­ı­gerdun­vakar­türabına­arz-­ı­bende-­i­bî-mikdar­ budur­ki, Kale-­i­Kavala’da­vaki­hâssa­kalitada­kürek­çeken­seksen­sekiz­nefer­mücrimler­ ve­esirlerin­yevmî­birer­kaçe­hesabı­üzre­işbu­sene­erbaʻa­ve­elf­tarihinde­vaki­ Muharrem­ve­Safer­ve­Rebiülevvel­aylarının­vacib­olan­nafakaları­uslub-­ı­sâbık­

188

Appendix

üzre­ havale­ olunup­ Siroz­ mukataâtından­ salyane­ olunmak­ için­ zikr­ olunan­

mücrimlerin­ esamileri­ defter­ olunup­ ve­ mühürlenip­ emr-­i­ şerif­ ricasına­

Dersaadet’e­ irsal­ eylemeğin­ vâki­ hal­ pâye-i­ serir-­i­ aʻlâya­ arz­ olundu.­ Bâkî­

ferman­der-­i­adâlet­ünvânındır.

Bende­Hüseyin­Kapudan-­ı­Kavala

[Mühür] The register of felons and prisoners employed in the oar-driven galley of Kavala in September, October, and November 1595. In total 88 individuals The humble servant preaches to the reason of the rotation of the World and the most honorable authority on earth, Ali Nasuh Nasuh Abdullah Mehmed Ali Budak Abdullah Hüseyin Rıza Sinan Abdullah Davud Abdullah Dimo Nikoli Esob Yuvan Matyo Nikola Nikola Françesko Koroşlu Kosta Luhya Andriye Marino Petro Andriya Dimo Kosta Yani Marino Françesko Oseb Yuvan

Ebu Bekir b. Abdullah Mustafa b. Abdullah Hamza Hasan Hasan Abdullah Mehmed Abdullah Memi Abdullah Rıdvan Abdullah Marko Frençesko Kosta Polo Mahtasan Esol Marino Kosta Halorşo Kosta Medaşa Yuvan Tariz Yuvan Marino Petro Haylo Dimo Fotni Duka Marino Yani

Ahmed b. Abdullah Hasan b. Abdullah Veli Mustafa Kanber Abdullah Hüseyin Nasuh Mercan Abdullah Yani Kosta Atval Petro Medina Kosta Nikola Penço Foti Dimo Mikel Yuvan Yuvan Roto Asman Kosta Yadimo Yuvan Marko Halormo Vali Andriya Kosta Mandiroso

Geyvan Abdullah Yahya b. Abdullah Cafer Abdullah Ömer Nat Katil Abdullah Murad Nasuh Marko Yuvan Kosta Andriye Matpo Medina Polo Yani Todor Andriye Korso Toman Petro Todor Dimo Kosta Esmale Kosta Esman Andriya Tomaş Frençesko

Sinan Ali Mustafa Veli İbrahim Haydar Bekir Veli İbrahim Veli Diğer Murad Abdullah Kolo Yuvan Marto Yuvan Korsu Yuvan Asman Medina Marino Françesko Melaned Andriye Andriye Dimo Laşa Holormo Dimo Kosta Lede Kosta Kol Yuvan

88 felons and prisoners who row the state-owned galley at Kavala Fortress get an akçe per day for their work. In order to deliver the provision/work of September, October, and November 1595, same as before, the income from the tax farming of Siroz will be the sources of the payment. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare and seal a register indicating the names of the felons, and send it to the Sublime Porte. I beg from Your Highness for an imperial edict managing the procedure. We will comply with the orders of Your Rightful Highness. The servant Hüseyin The Admiral of Kavala [Seal]

Appendix 189

Notes 1 Document by the grand vizier or officers to obtain the sultan’s permission; see TDV, Vol. 40, pp. 402–404. 2 Reference to a wealthy person. 3 The previous version of Higher Assembly of Judicial Verdicts. 4 See: “metropolitan” in Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com/topic/ metropolitan).

Glossary

Adalet Bakanlığı and Tapu Müdürlüğüne to the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate of Land Registry akçe small silver coin arşın Turkish measure-yard aşağı Kavala varoşu Kavala lower city bedesten, arasta, han trading centers like bazaars berat a document indicating that an appointment, duty, or exemption has been granted, has the Sultan’s monogram on it camii mosque çarşı downtown, market, bazaar çayırbaşı beginning of the meadow çaylar brook Cedid kıbti mahalle Christian Coptic neighborhood çeşme fountain cul de sac dead end street cumba bay window projection dere mahalle creek neighborhood dershane main classroom dış sofalı house with an outer hall extra muros outside walls eyvan iwan vaulted or domed space recessed from a central hall or court ferace thobe, or ankle-length garment, usually with long sleeves, similar to a robe, kaftan or tunic, commonly worn in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and neighboring Arab countries ferman Sultan’s edict Gazi (or Ghazi) title given to Muslim warriors or champions and used by several Ottoman Sultans hajj holy pilgrimage to Mecca hamam public bath harem women’s quarters hassa mimar imperial architect hayat/sofa open or enclosed balcony hazine-i hassa private treasury of the Ottoman sultan

Glossary

191

hisar castle iç kale inner citadel iç sofalı house with an inner hall ikindi namazi afternoon prayer intra muros inside the town walls imaret public soup kitchen, poorhouse kadı judge kale citadel kapnomagaza tobacco warehouse karnıyarık split-belly house floor plan kayyımlık guardian kervansaray inn also known as caravanserai or han konak large house in Turkey especially one used as an official residence köşk pavilion kumluk sandy area kurush piastre, an Ottoman currency unit, and a monetary unit of several Middle Eastern countries, equal to one hundredth of a pound küçük mahalle small neighborhood type külliye grand urban complex mahalle neighborhood medrese Muslim theological seminary or madrasah mekteb primary school menzil post stations merkez center mescid smaller mosque mesireye field trip muhtar official elected neighborhood representative mulazim intern müderris professor mühendishane school of engineering muqarnas form of ornamented vaulting in Islamic architecture orta hisar middle-walled town orta sofalı house with a central hall otağ Turkomanic nomadic tribe tent paşa Ottoman official, Pasha sabah namazi morning prayer sanjak district-level subdivision of a vilayet selamlık male quarters sıbyan mektebi primary school for teaching the Qur’an sofasız house without a hall sol kol left arm stretch of the ancient Via Egnatia Sör Dö Laşarine Lazarine Sisters spolia stone from earlier buildings reused in later ones Tanzimat series of reforms enacted in the Ottoman Empire between 1839 and 1876 Tapu Kadastro Müdürlüğü Land Registry Directorate

192

Glossary

tayfe guilds tekke dervish lodge tromp structure built across a square corner to support the weight of a dome türbe mausoleum vakıf pious foundations vezir vizier vilayet major administrative district or province with its own governor, estab lished after the Tanzimat reforms yeni mahalle new neighborhood yukarı varoşu upper suburb zäviye-imaret dervish lodge/soup kitchen zira-ı cedid new meters

Bibliography

Archival sources BOA registered under TT.d 7, pages 88–89 from 1478 (Hicri: Z.29.883).

BOA registered under TT.d 70, page 3–4 from 1519 (Hicri: Z.29.925).

BOA registered under A.{DVNSMHM 7/147 from September 3, 1567 (Hicri: S.29.975).

BOA registered under A.{DVNS.MHM 39/634 from April 18, 1580 (Hicri: Ra.03.988).

BOA registered under HAT 1446/19 from November 21, 1605 (Hicri: B.10.1014).

BOA registered under İE.ŞKRT 1/9 from August 10, 1607 (Hicri: R.16.1016).

BOA registered under İE.EV 21/2474 from March 30, 1673 (Hicri: Z.11.1083).

BOA registered under AE.SAMD.III 93/9275 from November 3, 1704 (Hicri:

B.05.1116). BOA registered under C.BLD 64/3199 from August 4, 1713 (Hicri: B.12.1125). BOA registered under AE.SAMD III 188/18240 from June 29, 1725 (Hicri: L.18.1137). BOA registered under C.BLD. 59/2937 May 6, 1731 (Hicri: L.29.1143). BOA registered under AE.SMHD.I 85/5744 from April 12, 1735 (Hicri: Za.18.1147).

BOA registered under Y.PRK.EV 1/2 from April 19, 1819 (Hicri: C.24.1234).

BOA registered under İ.MVL 82/1637, page 1 and page 2 from October 6, 1846 (Hicri:

L.14.1262). BOA registered under İ.MVL 90/1845 from March 6, 1847 (Hicri: Ra.18.1263).

BOA registered under ML.EEM 7/10 from April 25, 1867 (Rumi: Ni.13.1283).

BOA registered under ML.EEM 15/7 from August 24, 1870 (Rumi: A.12.1286).

BOA registered under ML.EEM 16/14 from February 3, 1871 (Rumi: Ks.21.1286).

BOA registered under ŞD 2006/8 from May 8, 1875 (Hicri: R.02.1292).

BOA registered under İ.DH 859/68776 from April 20, 1883 (Rumi: N.08.1299), page 1

and page 3. BOA registered under İ.DH 1003/79213 from September 25, 1886 (Hicri: Z.26.1303).

BOA registered under MF.MKT 183/69 from October 5, 1893 (Hicri: Ra.24.1311).

BOA registered under ŞD 2020 14 1 002 from November 9, 1893 (Hicri: R.29.1311).

BOA registered under ŞD 2020 14 2 from November 9, 1893 (Hicri: R.29.1311).

BOA registered under İ.AZN 9/5 from March 3, 1894 (Hicri: Ş.25.1311).

BOA registered under ŞD 2025/9 from April 7, 1896 (Rumi: March 26, 1312).

BOA registered under MF.MKT 450/52 from February 4, 1899 (Hicri: N.23.1316).

BOA registered under ŞD 2033/17 from April 10, 1899 (Hicri: Za.29.1316).

BOA registered under BEO 1306/97923 from May 10, 1899 (Hicri: Z.29.1316).

BOA registered under ŞD 2044/3 from December 10, 1901 (Hicri: Ş.28.1319).

BOA registered under BEO 1770/132716 from December 30, 1901 (Hicri: N.19.1319).

194

Bibliography

BOA registered under ŞD 2045/19 from July 26, 1902 (Hicri: R.20.1320).

BOA registered under BEO 1998/149819 from February 12, 1903 (Hicri: Za.14.1320).

BOA registered under ŞD 2046/26 from February 26, 1903 (Hicri: Za.28.1320).

BOA registered under and ŞD 2050/19 from March 6, 1905 (Hicri: M.09.1323).

BOA registered under İ.ΑΖΝ 60/38 plan from April 30, 1905 (Hicri: S.24.1323) page 4

and page 5. BOA registered under DH.MKT 1128/85 from October 18, 1906 (Hicri: Ş.29.1324) page 1. BOA registered under TFR.I.SL 187/18663, from July 18, 1908 (Hicri: C.18.1326).

BOA registered under ŞD 2063/15 from May 18, 1909 (Hicri: Ca.09.1327).

BOA registered under DH.MUİ./101-16-0 from May 19, 1910 (Hicri: 27-05-1328).

BOA registered under MV./142-51-0 from July 29, 1910 (Hicri: 21-07-1328).

BOA registered under DH.MUİ./105-69-0 from August 10, 1910 (Hicri: 03-08-1328).

OOZ Fond no. 43/Arch.Un.4 from year 1595 (Отдел Ориенталски Збирки (НБКМ)

Фонд но. 43/Арх.Ед.4) (Hicri: S.Ra.1004).

Published sources Ageloudi S. (2008). Ottoman-Venetian wars – Ottoman censuses, travelers and piracy. In Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedo nia. Komotini: Anglohellenic Pelti Publications S.A. Ahmad, A. (1994). In theory: Classes, nations, literatures. Verso. Akın, N. (2001). Balkanlarda Osmanlı dönemi konutları [Ottoman period residences in the Balkans]. İstanbul: Literatür. Aksoy, E. (1963). Orta mekan: Türk sivil mimarisinde temel kuruluş prensibi [Central space: the basic foundation principle in Turkish civil architecture]. Mimarlık ve Sanat, 20, 39–92. Aktemur, A.M. (2005). Osmanlı Bankası’nın Tarihçe Ve Mimarisi [History and architec ture of the Ottoman Bank]. Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, (15), 1–20. Al-Azm, S.J. (1981). Orientalism and Orientalism in reverse. Khamsin, 8, 5–26. Bacharach, J.L. (1991). Administrative complexes, palaces, and citadels: Changes in the loci of medieval Muslim rule. In I.A. Bierman, R.A. Abou-El-Haj, & D. Preziosi (Eds.), The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order (pp. 111–128). Aristide d Caratzas Pub. Bakić-Hayden, M. (1995). Nesting orientalisms: The case of former Yugoslavia. Slavic Review, 54(4), 918. Bakić-Hayden, M., & Hayden, R.M. (1992). Orientalist variations on the theme “Balkans”: Symbolic geography in recent Yugoslav cultural politics. Slavic Review, 51(1), 1–15. Bakirtzis, A., & Karabassis, G. (2008). Maintenance – Classification of the coastal walls. In The coastal wall of Kavala (Το Παραλιο τειχος τνς Καβαλας). Hellenic Ministry of culture. 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region. Kavala. Bakirtzis, A., Dakari, K., & Karabassis, G. (2008). The coastal wall of Kavala (Το Παραλιο τειχος τνς Καβαλας). Hellenic Ministry of culture. 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region. Kavala. Bakirtzis, C. (2003). The urban continuity and size of late Byzantine Thessalonike. Dum barton Oaks Papers, 57, 35–64.

Bibliography 195 Bakirtzis, C., & Koester, H. (Eds.). (2009). Philippi at the time of Paul and after his death. Wipf and Stock Publishers. Bakirtzis, I. (2008). Ottoman dominance in Eastern Macedonia: Hellenism’s struggle for survival. In Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedonia. Komotini: Anglohellenic Pelti Publications S.A. Bakirtzis, I. (2008). Serb and Latin rule in Eastern Macedonia. In Region of Eastern Mac edonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedonia. Komotini: Anglo hellenic – Pelti Publications S.A. Bechhoefer, W. (1998). House and urban form in Amasya, Turkey: A paradigm for new neighborhoods. In S. Ireland & W. Bechhoefer (Eds.), The Ottoman House. BIAA Monograph 26. Behçet, Ü. (1959). Turkish Islamic architecture in Seljuk and Ottoman times 1071–1923. London: Alec Tirantli. Belon, P. (1555). Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables, trou vées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie, et autres pays estranges, redigées en trois livres, par Pierre Belon du Mans. Reveuz de rechef, et augmentez de figures, avec une nouvelle table de toutes les matieres traictées en iceux. Paris: Chez Iean Steelsius à l’escu de Bourgoigne. Bertram, C. (2008). Imagining the Turkish house. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bierman, I.A., Abou-El-Haj, R.A., and Preziosi, D. (Eds.). (1991). The Ottoman city and its parts: Urban structure and social order (Vol. 3). Aristide d Caratzas Pub. Bing, J. (2018). Chardak between Heaven and Earth: Tracing vernacular space in Balkan architecture. Procyon Lotor Press. Bordoni, B. (1534). Isolario di Benedetto Bordone nel qual si ragiona di tutte l’Isole del mondo ... per Nicolo d’Aristotile, detto Zoppino. Boykov, G. (2010). Balkan city or Ottoman city? A study on the models of urban devel opment in Ottoman Upper Thrace, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans (pp. 69–86). Boykov, G. (2016). The T-shaped zaviye/imarets of Edirne: A key mechanism for Ottoman urban morphological transformation. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 3(1), 29–48. Bozdogan, S. (2015). Architecture and the late Ottoman historical imaginary: Reconfigur ing the architectural past in a modernizing empire. Journal of Art Historiography, 13. Bruni, B. (2003). La kulliye di Kavala: storia di un’istituzione [Kavala’s külliye: The story of an institution]. Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze. Carrier, J.G. (Ed.). (1995). Occidentalism: Images of the West. Clarendon Press. Cavazza, G. (1887). Viaggio a Costantinopoli di sier Lorenzo Bernardo: per l’arresto del bailo sier Girolamo Lippomano Cav., 1591 aprile [Journey to Constantinople by Lorenzo Bernardo: on the account of the arrest of the ambassador Girolamo Lippomano Cav., 1591 April], in Monumenti storici, edited by the R. Deputazione Veneta sopra gli Studi di Storia Patria, Vol. 4, Part 1. Venezia: Miscellanea. Cerasi, M. (1987). Late-Ottoman architects and master builders. Muqarnas Online, 5(1), 87–102. Cerasi, M. (1988). La città del Levante: Civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX [The city of the Levant: Urban civilization and architecture under the Ottomans in the XVIII–XIX centuries]. Milan: Jaca Books. Cerasi, M. (1998). The formation of the Ottoman house types: A comparative study in interaction with neighboring cultures. Muqarnas, 15, 116–156.

196

Bibliography

Cerasi, M. (2001). Osmanlı Kenti: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. yüzyıllarda kent uygarlığı ve mimarisi [Ottoman City: Urban civilization and architecture in the 18th and 19th centuries in the Ottoman Empire]. Istanbul: YKY. Cerasi, M. (2005). La città dalle molte culture: L’architettura del Mediterraneo orientale [The city of many cultures: The architecture of the eastern Mediterranean]. Milan: Libri Scheiwiller. Chalkokondyles, L. (1996). A translation and commentary of the “Demonstrations of Histories” (Books I-III) (Nikolaos Nicoloudis, Ed.). Athens: Historical Publications St. D. Basilopoulos. Crampton, R.J. (2005). A concise history of Bulgaria. Cambridge University Press. Cuneo, P. (1986). Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo islamico [History of urban planning: The Islamic world]. Bari: Editori Laterza. Cvetkova, B.A. (1971). Actes concernant la vie economique de villes et ports balkanique sous les ottomans (XV–XIX s.) [Acts concerning the economic life of Balkan towns and ports under the Ottomans (XV–XIX c.)]. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Çelik, Z., & Favro, D. (1988). Methods of urban history. Journal of Architectural Educa tion, 41(3). Dakari, K. (2008). Historical phases. In The coastal wall of Kavala (Το Παραλιο τειχος τνς Καβαλας). Hellenic Ministry of culture. 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region. Kavala. Dark, K.R. (2007). Roman architecture in the great palace of the Byzantine emperors at Constantinople during the sixth to ninth centuries. Byzantion, 77, 87–105. Dàvid, G., (2009). Administration, provincial. In G. Agoston & B. Masters, Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire (pp. 13–17). New York: Infobase Publishing. Dennis, G.T. (1967). The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403. Orientalia Christiana Peri odica, 33(1). Dermentzoglou, D., Dadaki, S., Avgoloupis, I., & Katsifarakis, K.L. (2019). Technical study of the historical aqueduct of Kavala, Greece. Water History, 11(3–4), 233–252. Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1980). Length-units in Roman town planning: The pes monetalis and the pes drusianus. Britannia, 11, 127–133. Eldem, H.E., Eldem, E., Goffman, D., & Masters, B. (1999). The Ottoman city between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul. Cambridge University Press. Eldem, S.H. (1954). Türk Evi Plan Tipleri [Turkish house plan types]. Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi. Eldem, S.H. (1984). Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi. Cilt.1 [Turkish house Ottoman period. Vol. 1]. Türkiye Anıt Çevre Turizm Değerlerini Koruma Vakfı. Ellis, S.P. (1988). The end of the Roman house. American Journal of Archaeology, 92(4), 565–576. Ellis, S.P. (2013). The Middle Byzantine house and family: A reappraisal. In L. Bru backer & S. Tougher (Eds.), Approaches to the Byzantine Family (pp. 247–273). London: Routledge. Fahmy, K. (1998). The era of Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, 1805–1848. In The Cambridge History of Egypt (Vol. 2, pp. 139–179). Cambridge University Press. Fahmy, K. (2008). Mehmed Ali: From Ottoman governor to ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Fleming, K.E. (2000). Orientalism, the Balkans, and Balkan historiography. The Ameri can Historical Review, 105(4), 1218–1233. Florescu, R. (1976). Prezente musulmane in Romania [Muslims in Romania Past and Present]. Bucarest.

Bibliography 197 Fraser, F.J. (1906). Pictures from the Balkans. London: Cassell and Company, Limited. Garantoudi, E. (2005). Η παλιά πόλη της Καβάλας (7ος πχ – 20ος αι.) [The old town of Kavala (7th bc–20th ad): Space, people, historical documents (Vol. I)]. Kavala: Publi cation of the Prefecture of Drama Kavala Xanthi/The Cultural Association of Panagia “The Castle”. Goldsworthy, V. (1998). Inventing Ruritania: The imperialism of the imagination. Yale University Press. Grabrijan, D. (1984). The Bosnian Oriental architecture in Sarajevo. Ljubljana: DDU Univerzum. Grabrijan, D. (1986). Macedonian house or its transition from old Oriental to modern European house. Skopje: Misla. Hakim, B.S. (1986). Arabic-Islamic cities: Building and planning principles. London and New York: KPI. Halliday, F. (1993). Orientalism and its critics. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 20(2), 145–163. Herzog, R., & Klaffenbach, G. (1952). Asylieurkunden aus Kos. Abhandlungen der Deut schen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, 1952(1). Ilieva, P. (2013). Archaic wheelmade ceramics from the cave of Maroneia and Kremasto (Asar Tepe), Aegean Thrace. Annual of the British School at Athens, 108, 137–185. Ioannidis, I. (1998). Το καπνικό στην Καβάλα, Μαρτυρίες και στοιχεία από το καπνεμπόριο και την καπνεργασία [Tobacco in Kavala: Testimonies and information from tobacco trade and tobacco processing]. Publication of the Historical Archive of the Municipal Museum of Kavala. Isaac, B.H. (1986). The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Ivkovska, V. (2016). Comparative analysis between the Istanbul house plan types and the plan types of the Ottoman houses in the Panagia district in Kavala/Vergleichende Analyse des Osmanischen Haustyps in Istanbul und dem Panagia Bezirk in Kavala. Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture, 9, 13–27. www.jccs-a.org/. Ivkovska, V. (2018). Ottoman vernacular architecture in the town of Kastoria (Kesriye), Greece. In M. Bernardini & A. Taddei (Eds.), 15th International Congress of Turkish Art proceedings (pp. 365–381). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Università di Napoli “l’Orientale”, Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino. Ivkovska, V. (2019). Aiming towards the sky: The vernacular “skyscrapers” of the SouthWest Balkans. ISVS e-journal, 6(3), 63–76. Ivkovska, V. (2019). Ottoman heritage in Southern Balkans: The multicultural port town of Kavala. In G. Amoruso, & R. Salerno (Eds.), Cultural landscape in practice (pp. 313–326). Cham: Springer. Ivkovska, V. (2019). The urban and architectural environment of a port town in Northern Greece: The case of Kavala in Ottoman time (1391–1912). In A. Naser Eslami & M. Folin (Eds.), Multi-ethnic cities in the Mediterranean world: port cities, building sites, minorities. Papers presented at AISU International Conference (Genoa, 4–5 June 2018). Milan–Turin: Pearson Italia Bruno Mondadori. EAN 9788867742592. pp. 113–128. İnalcik, H. (1954). Ottoman methods of conquest. Studia Islamica, 2, 103–129. Jayyusi, S.K., Holod, R., Petruccioli, A., & Raymond, A. (Eds.). (2008). The city in the Islamic world (2 vols.). Handbook of Oriental studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 94. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

198

Bibliography

Jesuit. (1827). Lettera del Padre Tarillon al Signor Di Pont Chartrain. 4 Marzo 1714 [Letter from Father Tarillon to Signor Di Pont Chartrain. March 4, 1714]. In Missione del Levante, Grecia, Crimea, Scelta di lettere edificanti scritte dalle missioni straniere preceduta da quadri geografici storici, politici, religiosi e letterari de’ paesi di mis sione accresciuta di un ragguaglio storico sulle missioni straniere di nuove lettere edi ficanti ed altri scelri pezzi. Traduzione dall’originale francese. Volume VII. Milano: Ranieri Fanfani. Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2009). Constantinopolis/Istanbul cultural encounter, imperial vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital. The Pennsylvania State University Press. Kahraman, A.S. (2011). Evliya Çelebi Günümüz Türkçesiyle Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnam esi: Gümülcine, Kavala, Selanik, Tırhala, Atina, Mora, Navarin, Girit Adası, Hanya, Kandiye, Elbasan, Ohri, Tekirdağı 8. Kitap 1. Cilt. [Evliya Çelebi Travel Book in Con temporary Turkish: Komotini, Kavala, Thessaloniki, Trikala, Athens, Peloponnese, Navarino, Crete Island, Chania, Heraklion, Elbasan, Ohrid, Tekirdag (Book 8. Volume 1)]. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kahraman, A.S., Dağlı, Y., Dankoff, R. (2003). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 305 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu- Dizini). VIII. Kitap [Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Transcription of the Topkapı Palace Library Baghdad Number 305- Directory). Book VIII]. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kalogirou, N., Nomikos, M., & Papadopoulou, T. (1992). Kavala intra muros: Spatial readings and architectural proposals. Kavala: Municipality of Kavala. Karagiannakidis, N.E., & Lycurinos, K. (2009). Neapolis – Christoypolis – Kavala: History of Kavala from 4500 bc to our days. Municipality of Kavala. Khalīfah, Ḥ. (1812). Rumeli und Bosna, geographisch beschrieben[Rumeli and Bosna, described geographically]. Kunst-und industrie-comptoir. Kiel, M. (1990). Studies on the Ottoman architecture of the Balkans. Collected studies series 326. Variorum. Kiel, M. (1990). Urban development in Bulgaria in the Turkish period: The place of Turkish architecture in the process. In K.H. Karpat (Ed.), The Turks of Bulgaria: The history, culture and political fate of a minority (pp. 79–158). Istanbul: Isis. Kiel, M. (1992). Remarks on some Ottoman-Turkish aqueducts and water supply systems in the Balkans: Kavalla, Chalkis, Levkas and Ferai/Ferecik. In H. Hofman & H. Boe schoten (Eds.), De turcicis aliisque rebus: Commentarii Henry Hofman dedicati. Utrecht: Instituut voor Oosterse Talen en Culturen. Kiel, M. (1996). Ottoman building activity along Via Egnatia: The cases of Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik. In E.A. Zachariadou (Ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule (1380–1699): Halcyon days in Crete II: A symposium held in Rethymnon 9–11 January 1994. Crete University Press. Kiel, M. (2002). Kavala. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 25, pp. 60–62). Ankara. Кийл [Kiel], М. (2005). Хора и селища в България през османския период. Събрани съчинения [People and settlements in Bulgaria during the Ottoman period. Collected works]. Sofia: Amicitia. Kiel, M. (2005). Un héritage non désiré: le patrimoine architectural islamique ottoman dans l’Europe du Sud-Est, 1370–1912[An unwanted heritage: The Ottoman Islamic architectural heritage in South-Eastern Europe, 1370–1912], Études balkaniques [online], 12. Put online April 6, 2009, last retrieved December 5, 2018. http://journals. openedition.org/etudesbalkaniques/123. Kiel, M. (2013). Yenice-İ Karasu Yunanistan’ın Batı Trakya bölgesinde tarihî bir kasaba;

Bibliography 199 Yenice-i Vardar Yunanistan’da Tarihi bir Kasaba; Yenişehir Yunanistan’da Tarihi bir Kasaba [Genisea, a historical town in the Western Thrace region of Greece; Giannitsa, a historical town in Greece; Larissa, an historical town in Greece]. In TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi. Klusakova, L. (2001). Between reality and stereotype: Town views of the Balkans. Urban History, 28(3). Klusakova, L. (2002). The road to Constantinople: Sixteenth-century Ottoman towns through Christian eyes. Prague: ISV Publishers. Know How Networks. (2006). Research Committee AUTH – School of Architecture, Kavala Intra Muros: Mobility. Kolonas, V. (2005). Greek architects in the Ottoman Empire 19th-20th centuries. Olkos. Kolonas, V. (2014). H Θεσσαλονικη Εκτοσ Των Τειχων Εικονογραφια Της Συνοικιασ Των Εξοχων (1885–1912) [Thessaloniki outside the walls: Illustrations of the Countryside (1885–1912)]. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press. Konuk, N. (2010). Ottoman Architecture in Greece. Ankara: Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi. Korobeinikov, D. (2006). How “Byzantine” were the early Ottomans? Bithynia in c.1290–1450. In Z.I. Vladimirovich & O.S. Filippovna (Eds., 2010), Османский мир и османистика. Сборник статей к 100-летию со дня рождения АС Тверитиновой (1910–1973). Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies. Kostof, S. (1991). The city shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Kostof, S. (1992). The city assembled: The elements of urban form through history. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Kostof, S. (1995). A history of architecture: Settings and rituals. New York: Oxford University Press. Kramers, J.H. (1927). Kawala. In A.J. Wensinck, P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bos worth, E. van Donzel, & W.P. Heinrichs (Eds.) (1960–2004), Encyclopaedia of Islam (new ed.). Leiden: Brill. Kuban, D. (1995). The Turkish Hayat house. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık. Turkish trans lation, 1996. Türk hayatlı evi. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık. Kuban, D. (2010). Istanbul, an urban history: Byzantion, Constaninopolis, Istanbul. Türkiye İş Bankasi Kültür yayınları. Kuban, D. (2017). Türk Ahşap Konut Mimarisi 17.-19. Yüzyıllar [Turkish wooden housing architecture 17.–19. centuries]. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayıncılık. Kuran, A. (2012). Selçuklular’dan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de mimarlık [Architecture in Turkey from the Seljuks to the Republic]. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Küçükerman, Ö. (2007). The Turkish house in search of spatial identity. Turkish Touring and Automobile Association. Lalenis, K., & Samourkasidou, E. (2013). Wakfs in Kavala, Greece: A legal, political and architectural heritage issue. International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(2), 206–220. Laurence, R. (2010). Roman Pompeii: Space and society. Routledge.

Lazaridi, I.D. (1969). Νεαπολισ Χριστουπολισ Καβαλα Οδηγοσ Μουσειου Καβαλασ [Neap olis Christopoli Kavala: Museum guide Kavala]. Athens. Leake, W.M. (1835). Travels in Northern Greece. London: J. Rodwell, New Bond Street. Lewis, B. (1982, June 24). The question of Orientalism. New York Review of Books, 1993–1999.

200

Bibliography

Lila, T.S., & Athena, M.K. (2013). Tobacco firms and their purchasing offices in Cavalla during the first half of the 20th c.: The dissemination of the Austro-Hungarian and Swedish architectural style. Paper presented at the Tobacco Roads Vienna to Kavala: Technology Transfer in the Early Twentieth Century conference held July 5–7, 2013 Kavala, Greece. Lowry, H.W. (2008). The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The conquest, settlement & infrastructural development of Northern Greece (Chapter VI). Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications. Lowry, H.W. (2009). In the footsteps of the Ottomans: A search for sacred spaces & architectural monuments in Northern Greece. Bahçeşehir University Press. Lowry, H.W. (2010a). Piri Reis revisited: The Kitab-ı Bahriyye as a source for Ottoman history: The Aegean port of Kavala & the Island of Limnos (İlimli) as described by Piri Reis. Osmanlı Araştırmaları (The Journal of Ottoman Studies), 35. Lowry, H.W. (2010b). The “Soup Muslims” of the Ottoman Balkans: Was there a “Western” & “Eastern” Ottoman Empire? Osmanlı Araştırmaları (The Journal of Ottoman Studies), 36, 97–133. Lowry, H.W. (2013). Early Ottoman period. In M. Heper & S. Sayari (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey. Routledge. Lowry, H. (2015). The role of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos and his descendants in endowing zâviye-imârets (dervish lodges–soup kitchens) in the Balkans: Scale – intent – dura tion. In M. Baramova, G. Boykov, & I. Parvev (Eds.), Bordering early modern Europe (pp. 163–184). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Lowry, H.W., & Erunsal, E.I. (2011). Remembering one’s roots: Mehmed Ali Pasa of Egypt’s links to the Macedonian town of Kavala: Architectural monuments, inscrip tions & documents. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press. Lychounas, M. (2008). Μεσαιωνικό Υδραγωγείο Καβάλας (Καμάρες) [Medieval aqueduct of Kavala (Kamares)]. Kavala: Ministry of Culture – 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities. Makdisi, U. (2002). Ottoman Orientalism. The American Historical Review, 107(3), 768–796. Mani, L., & Frankenberg, R. (1985). The challenge of Orientalism. Economy and Society, 14(2), 174–192. Matvejevic, P. (1999). The Mediterranean: A cultural landscape (M.H. Heim, Trans.). Los Angeles: University of California Press. Merle A. (Ed.). (2001). Voyage au Levant: Les observations de Pierre Belon du Mans. Paris: Éditions Chandeigne. Mogens, H.H. (2004). Inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation con ducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Monter, W. (2007). Cities and cultural exchange in Europe 1400–1700 (D. Calabi & S. Turk Christensen, Eds.). Cultural exchange in early modern Europe, Vol. 2. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press. Moutsopoulos, N. (1990). Traditional Greek architecture – Kastoria. Athens: Melissa Publishing. Necipoğlu, G. (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power: The Topkapı Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Neglia, G.A. (2008). Some historiographical notes on the Islamic city with particular refer ence to the visual representation of the built city. In S.K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petrucci oli, & A. Raymond (Eds.), The city in the Islamic world (pp. 3–46). Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography 201 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), Book of Acts, Chapter 16, verses 8–12. www.catholic.org/ bible/book.php?id=51. Orlandi, L. (2017). Il paesaggio delle architetture di Sinan. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Ostrogorsky, G. (1959). Byzantine cities in the early middle ages. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13, 45–66. Owens, E.J. (2018). The city in the Greek and Roman world. Routledge. Öztürk, N. (2013). Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi (1285–1502) [Aşıkpaşazade History, Ottoman History (1285-1502)]. Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat. Öztürk, N.A. (2014). The origins of the Ottoman state through the eyes of Aşikpaşazade. Master Thesis submitted to Bahçeşehir University Graduate School of Social Sciences Ottoman History Graduate Program. Papazoglou, G.K. (2008). Eastern Macedonia: Kavala and Drama – time and space. In Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedo nia. Komotini: Anglohellenic Pelti Publications S.A. Papazoglou, G.K. (2010). Traditional architecture in Eastern Macedonia–Thrace. Alex androupolis: Pelti Publications S.A. Papazoglou, N.G., & Papazoglou, A.G. (2008). Paths of remembrance in the Byzantine era: The written testimonies. In Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace & G.K. Papazoglou (Eds.), Eastern Macedonia. Komotini: Anglohellenic Pelti Publications S.A. Pernot, H.O. (1925). Voyage en Turquie et en Grèce du RP Robert de Dreux, aumonier de l’ambassadeur de France (1665–1669) [Journey to Turkey and Greece by RP Robert de Dreux, chaplain to the Ambassador of France (1665–1669)]. Société d’édition “Les belles lettres”. Pinon, P. (2008). The Ottoman cities of the Balkans. In S.K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petruc cioli, & A. Raymond (Eds.), The City in the Islamic World, Vol. 2 (pp. 141–158). Leiden: Brill. Piri Reis. (1521, 1526). Kitab-i Bahriye (Book of the Seas) (two editions). Pouqueville, F. (1826). Voyage de la Grece. Paris: Firmin Didot, Père et Fils. Püsküllüoğlu, A. (2002). Türkçe Sözlük. Türkiye Türkçesinin en büyük sözlük [Turkish dictionary]. İstanbul: Doğan Kıtap. Rabbat, N., (2011). The pedigreed domain of architecture: A view from the cultural margin. Perspecta, 44, 6–192. Raymond, A. (1994). Islamic city, Arab city: Orientalist myths and recent views. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 21(1), 3–18. Raymond, A. (2002). Arab cities in the Ottoman period: Cairo, Syria, and the Maghreb. Routledge. Raymond, A. (2008). The spatial organization of the city. In S.K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, & A. Raymond (Eds.), The city in the Islamic world (pp. 47–70). Leiden: Brill. Rentetzi, M. (2008). Configuring identities through industrial architecture and urban plan ning: Greek tobacco warehouses late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Science Studies, 21(1). Said, E. (1982, August 12). In response to The Question of Orientalism. New York Review of Books. Said, E. (1988). Orientalism Revisited. MERIP Middle East Reports, 18(1). Said, E. (1993). Orientalism and after: An interview. Radical Philosophy, 63(Spring 1993). Said, E. (1995). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1978).

202

Bibliography

Say. S. (2013). Alexander Vallaury’s architecture: An overview. www.levantineheritage. com. Schreiner, P. (1977). Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: 2. Teil, Historischer Kommen tar [The Byzantine minor chronicles. Part 2. Historical commentary]. Wien: Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften. Schurman, J.G. (1914). The Balkan Wars: 1912–1913. Princeton University Press.

Setton, K.M. (Series Ed.). (1914). A history of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries (H.W. Hazard, Ed.) (Vol. 3). University of Pennsylvania Press. Shashko, P. (2004). Nikolai T. Todorov, 1921–2003. Slavic Review, 63(2), 456–457. Smyrlis, K. (2008). The first Ottoman occupation of Macedonia (Ca. 1383–Ca. 1403): Some remarks on land ownership, property transactions and justice. In A. Beihammer, M. Parani, & C. Schabel (Eds.), Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000–1500: Aspects of cross-cultural communication (pp. 325–348). Boston: Brill. Somel, S.A. (2003). Historical dictionary of the Ottoman Empire. Scarecrow Press. Staddon, C., & Mollov, B. (2000). City profile: Sofia, Bulgaria. Cities, 17(5), 379–387. Stefanidou, A. (1986). Το κονάκι του Μουχαμάντ Αλί Πασά στην Καβάλα [The mansion of Mehmed Ali Pasha in Kavala]. Επώνυμα αρχοντικά των χρόνων της Τουρκοκρατίας [In Famous mansions during the Ottoman domination]. Athens: University Press, NTUA. Stefanidou, A. (1987). The Kavala Imaret. Macedonian Chronicles, 25. Stefanidou, A. (2000). The tobacco processing areas in Kavala. Thessaloniki: Aristho telus University of Thessaloniki School of Polytechnics. Stefanidou, A. (2007). Η πολη-λιμανι της Καβαλας κατα την περιοδο της τουρκοκρατιας, Πολεοδομικη και ιστορικη διερευνηση (1391–1912) [The port city of Kavala during the period of Turkish rule, Urban and historical investigation (1391–1912)]. Kavala: Historical and Literature Archive Kavala. Şarlak, E. (2010). 19. Yüzyılda İstanbul’un Fiziksel Çehresinin Değişmesine Rol Oynayan Kubbeli Rum Ortodoks Kiliseleri [The role of the domed Orthodox churches in transforming Istanbul’s physical appearance in the nineteenth century]. In H. Kuruyazıcı & E. Şarlak (Eds.), Batılılaşan İstanbul’un Rum Mimarları. Istanbul: Zoğrafyon Lisesi Mezunları Derneği. Şenyurt, O. (2012). İstanbul Rum Cemaatinin Osmanlı Mimarisindeki Temsiliyeti [Representation of Istanbul Greek community in Ottoman architecture]. Istanbul: Doğu Kitabevi. Theodoridou-Sotiriou L., Moustaka-Kampouri A. (2013). Tobacco firms and their offices in Cavalla during the first half of the 20th c.: The dissemination of the AustroHungarian and Swedish architectural style. TEI of Central Macedonia and University of Manchester. Todorov, N. (1983). The Balkan city, 1400–1900. Publications on Russia and Eastern Europe of the School of International Studies, No. 12. University of Washington Press. Todorova, M. (1996). The construction of a Western discourse of the Balkans. Etnološka tribina: Godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društva, 26(19), 7–24. Todorova, M. (2009). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford University Press. Turner, B.S. (1989). From Orientalism to global sociology. Sociology, 23(4), 629–638. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı. (1988–2013). Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi [Turkish Religious Foundation Islamic Encyclopedia] (TDV). Türkoǧlu, İ. (2004). Byzantine houses in Western Anatolia: an architectural approach. AlMasaq, 16(1). Ursinus, M.O.H (2012). Millet. In P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W.P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill.

Bibliography 203 Ünsal, B. (1959). Turkish Islamic architecture in Seljuk and Ottoman times. London: Alec Tiranti. Veinstein, G. (2008). The Ottoman town (fifteenth–eighteenth centuries). In S.K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, & A. Raymond (Eds.), The city in the Islamic World (pp. 2015–217). Leiden: Brill. Vryonis Jr, S. (1956). Isidore Glabas and the Turkish devshirme. Speculum, 31(3), 433–443. Vyzikas, I. (2010). Kαβαλα Η Μεκκα Του Καπνου. Τομος Γ΄ [Kavala, The Mecca of tobacco, Vol. 3]. Kavala: Institute for Social Movements History and Tobacco. Walker, M.A. (1897). Old tracks and new landmarks. London: Richard Bentley and Son. Ward, P. (1993). Sofia: Portrait of a city. Oleander Press. Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1974). Cities of ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in classical antiquity. New York: George Braziller. Weber, M., Martindale, D., and Neuwirth, G. (1958). The city (pp. 65–89). New York: Free Press. Yerasimos, S. (1991). Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIVe–XVIe siècles) [Trave lers in the Ottoman Empire (14th–16th centuries)]. Publications de la Société turque d’histoire, Serie VII, Vol. 117. Ankara: Imprimerie de la Societé Turque d’histoire. Zachariadou, E.A. (Ed.) (1996). The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule (1380–1699): Halcyon days in Crete II: A symposium held in Rethymnon 9–11 January 1994. Crete University Press. Ziogas, C.P. (1990). Traditional buildings of modern Kavala. Thessaloniki: Altinitzis Athanasios.

Web sources Encyclopedia Britannica; accessible on www.britannica.com.

www.britannica.com/place/Balkans.

www.britannica.com/place/Rumelia, accessed November 2018.

www.britannica.com/science/Orientalism-cultural-field-of-study, accessed July

2019. The Institute of Social Movements and Tobacco History; accessible on www. ikkik.gr. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/menzil-osmanli.

www.oldmapsonline.org.

www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/184410/Sveti-Sava-to-nije-rekaoradivoj%20radic.

romeartlover.tripod.com/Kavala.html.

tarihvemedeniyet.org/2009/10/selanik-vilayeti.

Index

Abbott Brothers 97 Adriatic Sea 22, 49 Aegean Sea 1, 22, 51, 62, 68, 87, 94, 120, 122, 129, 132 Agios Athanasios 101, 102 Agios Ioannis 100, 101, 108, 132 Agios Pavlos 4, 89, 108, 109, 110, 118 Agios Sila 51 Alawites 9 Albania 17, 18, 22, 40, 65 Alexander the Great 45, 51 Alexandria 16 Ali Pasha, Mehmed 2, 3, 6, 7, 65, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 96, 103, 110, 124, 137, 168, 172, 202 Allatini 96, 99, 100 Amphipolis 20 Andronikos Palaiologos II 48 Anthemiou street 84 Apostle Paul 15, 45, 47, 48 aqueduct xvii, 3, 6, 7, 22, 29, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 67, 68, 76, 82, 84, 104, 105, 114, 121, 130, 131, 134, 136, 140, 196, 198, 200 Arab cities 10, 37, 201 Armenian 18, 19, 32, 33, 95, 96, 99, 129, 132 arsenal 71, 165 Balkan Orientalism 14 Balkanism 6, 14, 15, 32 Balkanization 9 bazar 26 Belon, Pierre 54, 57, 190, 200 Beyazit 50 bive 52, 120, 138 Bosnia 17, 18, 40, 43, 197 Bucefal 51 Budapest 97

Bulgaridi, Monsieur Petro 114 Byzantine Empire 10, 11, 38, 40 camii 58, 190 Candarli, Halil Hayreddin 50 caravanserai 191, 20, 41, 57 çarşı xvi, 6, 17, 26, 27, 29, 59, 190 Catalan 48 Catholic 89, 111, 112, 113, 114, 133, 201 Cavala 51 Cavazza, Gabriele 58 Çaylar 4, 89, 108, 109, 111, 180, 181, 182, 183, 190 Cedid Kıbti 105, 107, 190 cemetery 100, 101, 167, 168, 179 central hall 34, 35, 94, 190, 191 çeşme 29, 31, 139, 190 charitable foundation 41, 75, 77, 163 Chelebi, Evliya 58, 59 Christoupolis 6, 7, 20, 21, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58, 88, 89, 129 citadel 12, 19, 27, 38, 42, 111, 191, 194 Codex 48, 51, 100, 126 Constantinople 16, 18, 22, 38, 41, 65, 76, 108, 122, 195, 196, 199 Copt 195, 107, 108, 114, 126, 127, 131, 132, 190 Croat 19, 129 cul de sac 10, 22, 27, 30, 65, 79, 83, 84, 86, 190 dershane 73, 77, 78, 79, 82, 154, 155, 161, 164, 190 dervish lodge 18, 19, 21, 27, 41, 57, 130, 192, 200 Didymoteicho 20, 21, 49 Drama 18, 19, 21, 27, 41, 57, 130, 192, 200

Index Efendi, Mishon 110 Ekklisia Kimisi Theotokou 88 Evrenos, Gazi 7, 21, 41, 49, 200 extra muros 4, 29, 56, 94, 95, 131, 132, 190 eyvan 34, 160, 190 Fotiadis, Periklis D. 108 Fourth Crusade 48 Franks 48 garden 24, 27, 59, 60, 61, 84, 86, 87, 90, 94, 101, 131 garrison 38, 68, 69, 71, 73 gate 18, 24, 42, 59, 61, 63, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 82, 83, 84, 130, 134, 158 guilds 94, 133, 175, 192 Gulf of Rodine 62 Gulf of the Contessa 62 Haji, Khalīfah 5 Halil Bey 2, 4, 47, 48, 56, 69, 71, 72, 73, 82, 84, 85, 88, 134, 136, 141, 142 hamam 20, 57, 59, 79, 137, 143, 144, 146, 147, 190 Hamidiye 4, 32, 101, 104, 105, 106 han 57, 58, 136, 143, 144, 153, 162, 190, 191 harem 34, 43, 87, 190 Hellenistic 9, 11, 14, 16, 25, 33, 43, 45, 128 Heptapyrgion 19 Heracleia 20 Herzog et Cie 97, 98, 99, 100 hisar 59, 61, 62, 65, 69, 73, 130, 140, 149, 191 households 52, 53, 58, 62, 105, 107, 111, 120, 121, 138, 179 Hüseyin Bey 4, 56, 59, 69, 71, 72, 73, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 123, 136, 140 Ibrahim Pasha xvi, 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 84, 85, 86, 94, 110, 121, 122, 130, 131, 134, 136, 137, 144, 145, 147, 148 iç sofa 34, 191 imaret xvi, xvii, 3, 6, 21, 24, 37, 41, 57, 58, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 123, 124, 134, 146, 147, 191, 192, 195, 200, 202 imperial architect 70, 150, 190 inn 57, 58, 130, 136, 144, 145, 191 inner hall 9, 34, 35, 94, 132, 191 intra muros 29, 56, 84, 85, 91, 124, 132, 133, 191, 198, 199

205

Ioustianou Street 84 Ioannina 49 Iron Age 44 Islamic city 9, 10, 16, 37, 100, 197 Islamic-Arabic 24 iwans 34, 190 Izmir 16, 18, 19, 31, 129 Jew 10, 18, 19, 27, 29, 32, 37, 39, 58, 95, 96, 97, 100, 110, 118, 129, 131, 132, 137, 185, 186 Jölağa, Monsieur Etyen 114 Kadi Ahmed Efendi 2, 4, 56, 69, 73, 74, 84, 85, 123, 143 Kalamaria 32, 42 kale 12, 27, 61, 75, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 148, 149, 150, 164, 166, 187, 191 Kamares 51, 200 kapnomagaza 95, 191 Karaorman 100, 102, 178, 179 Karasou 53 kasaba 23, 41, 146, 180, 182, 198, 199 Kawala 53, 121, 199 kervansaray 57, 191 King Philip II 45 Kitab-i Bahriye 9, 7, 52, 53, 54, 120, 201 Kladon, Vasilios 48 Komotini 20, 22, 49, 50, 118, 194, 195, 198, 201 konak 18, 87, 134, 191 köşk 34, 191 külliye 23, 24, 26, 41, 58, 61, 62, 71, 79, 123, 129, 130, 148, 191, 195 Kumluk 4, 96, 97, 110, 137, 165, 166, 167, 176, 177, 178, 191 Late Neolithic 44 Lazarine Sisters 111, 191 Lear, Edward 62, 69 Levantine 16, 100, 125, 133 lower city 60, 190 Macedonia 7, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 34, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 65, 69, 76, 99, 101, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202 madrasa 137, 157, 191 mansion 77, 87, 124, 134, 158, 202 March Lords 12, 21 Maritsa 49 Marmara 22, 34, 36, 92, 120 mausoleum 101, 103, 168, 171, 172, 192 Mecca 12, 76, 157, 159, 190, 203

206

Index

Medieval towns 26 Mediterranean 2, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 39, 43, 52, 62, 65, 78, 100, 119, 121, 129, 157, 163, 196, 197, 200, 202 mekteb 31, 57, 71, 79, 81, 104, 160, 161, 184, 186, 191 merchant 19, 23, 58, 95, 96, 97, 100, 108, 114, 129, 132, 168, 175, 176 merkez 108, 166, 180, 191, 199 mescid xvii, 6, 19, 27, 29, 31, 59, 71, 104, 129, 130, 136, 141, 142, 191 Middle Castle 61, 62, 65, 69, 82 Middle East 11, 16, 27, 37, 38, 39, 191, 197, 201 middle town 59, 69, 70, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 130, 131, 136 mihrab 58, 73, 77, 155, 158, 161, 164 milliaries 45, 48 minaret 18, 62, 68, 71, 73, 74, 104, 142 Mount Athos 48, 50, 51, 58, 68, 87 Mount Pangaion 44 mücerred 52, 120, 138 mühendishane 78, 79, 191 Muslim city 9, 10, 13, 58 Murat I 49 Murat II 50 Neapolis 6, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 118, 119, 198, 199 Norman 48 Northern Greece 1, 4, 6, 7, 15, 20, 21, 36, 40, 41, 43, 49, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 197, 199, 200 Occidentalism 13, 39, 195 Ohrid 24, 25, 198 Orient 9, 10, 13, 14 Oriental city 11, 13, 16 Oriental town 15 Orta Hisar 59, 61, 62, 65, 69, 130, 191 orta sofa 34, 191 Orthodox 10, 13, 15, 89, 100, 108, 114, 120, 126, 127, 133, 179, 202 Ottoman conquest 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25, 49, 50, 129 Ottoman Orientalism 13, 14, 15, 32, 39, 200 Ottomanization 16, 23, 128 outer hall 9, 34, 35, 43, 132, 133, 190 Palaiologos, Manuel 5 Panagia 8, 43, 88, 89, 124, 125, 127, 197 pavilions 34 Pasha Zade, Ashik 49, 50

Philippi 20, 45, 46, 47, 48, 118, 119, 195 pious foundation 2, 22, 23, 24, 29, 57, 76, 79, 123, 142, 144, 147, 148, 192 pirate 53, 58, 62, 122, 130 portolan 52, 58 post stations 20, 191 Poulidou Street 82, 84, 86 Pouqueville, Francois 94 Regie 97, 125 residence 18, 26, 27, 99, 181, 191, 194 residential area 2, 24, 61, 62, 63, 74 Rodopi Mountains 22 Rumelia 17, 18, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 49, 50, 77, 104, 147, 163, 203 Sahin, Lala 50 Sanjak 50, 177, 178, 179, 185, 186, 191 Schinasi Bros 97 sebilhane 59 şehir 23 selamlık 34, 43, 87, 191 Selimiye 4, 105, 107 Seljuk 12, 16, 19, 39, 41, 195, 199, 203 Serbia 13, 17, 18, 38, 40, 43, 119, 134 Serres 20, 21, 49, 50, 119 Slav 14, 20, 33, 38, 47, 194, 202 sofa 34, 87, 90, 92, 190, 191 sofasız 34, 191 St. Panteleimon 51 St. Sava 13, 38 Stobi 20 Strymon 45, 47, 48, 49 Suleiman Halife 70 Suleiman the Magnificent 6, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 67, 121, 130, 134 Sultan Abdul Hamid II 42, 101 Sultan Selim I 9, 6, 53, 54, 55, 129, 130, 134 Sunni Muslims 9 Tanzimat 6, 15, 25, 27, 31, 33, 39, 56, 89, 95, 119, 132, 133, 191, 192 Tassos 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 58, 62, 68, 76, 78, 84, 87, 104, 120, 122, 129 tax register 1, 7, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 120, 121, 129, 131, 133, 136 tayfa 94, 133 tekke 27, 192 Thessaloniki 5, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 63, 65, 90, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 104, 111, 114, 120, 125, 126, 127, 129, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 198, 202, 203

Index Thessaly 17, 49 Thrace 17, 32, 37, 44, 46, 48, 118, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201 travelers 1, 3, 7, 15, 21, 23, 45, 57, 58, 120, 121, 128, 134, 194, 203 treasury 100, 104, 143, 144, 145, 168, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 183, 190 Tsirmen 50, 119 türbe 101, 103, 110, 162, 166, 169, 172, 192 Turks 10, 36, 38, 51, 57, 68, 76, 95, 119, 198 Upper neighborhood 61, 63, 71, 86 urban nucleus 84, 130 vakıf 22, 24, 57, 79, 104, 137, 146, 147, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 192 Valley of the Thieves 63

207

Varoş 56, 60, 61, 63, 108, 114, 118, 132, 190, 192 Venetian 19, 51, 53, 58, 62, 65, 120, 121, 129, 194 Via Egnatia 1, 6, 7, 20, 21, 22, 41, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 58, 65, 118, 121, 122, 130, 191, 198, 203 warehouse 59, 62, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 125, 133, 191, 201 Western architecture 114 Xanthi 50, 95, 99, 100, 125, 126, 197 Yedi Kule 19 Yeni Mahalle 105, 107, 108, 110, 118, 126, 127, 137, 184, 186, 192 zäviye-imärets 21, 41, 200