Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz (eds.), Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ottoman Scholars and the Byzantine Architectural Legacy of Istanbul
Discovering Byzantium in Istanbul: Scholars, Institutions, and Challenges, 1800–1955, 2022
Byzantium was the tangible evidence of moral decay. Like cholera, the Byzantine corruption contaminated the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans did not understand this at the beginning. … The Turks, coming from the Turan [Central Asia], were tired of the wars. They could not resist the beauty and charm of Byzantium. The Turks did not capture the Byzantine Empire; on the contrary, the Byzantines captured the Turks! That is how Celal Nuri (İleri) (1881-1938), a prominent figure in the Young Turk movement, painted Byzantine and Ottoman history in 1912. 1 Nuri published another essay five years later in which he further elaborated on the "conquest" of the Ottoman Turks by the Byzantines, comparing the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires in terms of their administrative practices, courtly culture, and ceremonies. 2 There he concluded that the appropriation of Byzantine institutions had been the main cause of the corruption of Turkic identity and thus the demise of the Ottoman Empire. He was not alone in thinking so. Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844-1912), a prominent historian of the period, also compared both empires, declaring the Byzantine Empire the embodi-* This paper is based on a chapter of my doctoral dissertation, "Byzantium between 'East' and 'West': Perceptions and Architectural Historiography of the Byzantine Heritage" (Middle East Technical University, 2013). I would like to thank Professor Suna Güven, my thesis supervisor, for her guidance.
Kolloquium Forschende Frauen 2018: Beiträge Bamberger Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen / hg. von Ute Franz und Iris Hermann., 2019
This article comprises architectural discussion of 16th century Ottoman mosques in Bosnia-Herzegovina in socio-political context as determined by the historical relations between the Dubrovnik Republic (Republic of Ragusa) and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It provides discussion of mobility and identity of their builders and craftsmen in order to pinpoint mechanisms behind the patronage of Ottoman mosques and their construction. The research begins with an introductory background and discussion of a selection of mosques based on analysis of their pre and post war documentation and their art historical examination. Analysis of architectural structures with a focus on mosque minarets leads towards establishing relations between mosques and examination of their builders and their politically and culturally significant trans-regional mobility. The paper employs different sources, among which: field research of monuments, archival photographic documentation analysis, art historical discussion, primary written sources use and inquiry in documented regional migration of builders and stonemasons. The research finds propose a contextualised understanding of Bosnian Ottoman architecture, information on craftsmen and builders’ migration and sociopolitical significance of architectural patronage. In doing so, the paper begins to fill one of the gaps in the understanding of Ottoman architectural heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was additionally distorted in the period following the armed conflict, which determined the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and during the subsequent nation building movements.
Suna ÇAĞAPTAY, M. ÇAĞHAN KESKIN Ιn the aftermath of the Timurid sack: Buildings and builders in Bursa While the use of alternating brick-and-stone masonry is a distinguishing feature in the early religious as well as nonreligious Ottoman buildings of Bursa, during the reign of Bayezid I the architectural culture shifted to stone-marble ashlar masonry. In this paper, we would like to argue that the Timurid sack of 1402 did not disrupt the Ottoman empire-building project so much as herald a continuation carried out with similar materials but an evolving vocabulary. The Ottoman project was resumed in full when Timur left Anatolia about a decade later in 1413 to pursue his longtime ambition of conquering Asia itself. The new architectural style included many borrowings from the Mamluk, Timurid, and local Anatolian-Balkan elements, as showcased by the Green (Yeşil) Convent-Masjid (1419-21) established by Mehmed I (r. 1413-21). Using a nuanced re-reading of the archival, epigraphic and visual evidence, we aim to chase the identity of the builders. Whatever the limitations of the Mamluks' work, it demonstrates that not just Byzantine but also other masons and builders added their efforts to Ottoman buildings through elevation and plan, decoration, and construction techniques. Indeed, a wide range of Mamluk, Timurid, and local Anatolian-Balkan elements also appear in the early fifteenth-century architecture of Bursa in the aftermath of the Timurid sack and during the interregnum period. Patricia BLESSING Bursa and beyond: On the fifteenth-century origins of Ottoman architecture This paper examines Ottoman architecture in the long fifteenth century, against the backdrop of major historical events such as Bayezid I's defeat against Timur in 1402, the interregnum, and Mehmed II's conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It argues against a teleological narrative that moves from the first extant Ottoman-sponsored monuments to the major intervention of Sinan in the mid-sixteenth century. Rather, the paper focuses on the diverse and multi-valent nature of the emerging Empire's building program. Paschalis ANDROUDIS Early Ottoman architecture in Greece. The so-called "Bursa" period The monuments of the early Ottoman architecture in Greece share some common elements such the cloisonné brickwork system (the use of alternating brick-and-stone masonry). The presence of this system which is a distinguishing feature in the early Ottoman buildings of Bursa, led some Greek scholars to speak about the "School of Bursa" in Greece and "buildings of small scale and rather provincial character in comparison with major works in the Northern Balkans, Bursa and Edirne". This paper will present some early Ottoman monuments in Greece that share some common, mainly external features that can be found in the buildings of Bursa and its sphere and why the term "Bursa period" in Greece should not be used any more.
2018
As the capital of Roman and later Eastern Roman Empires, Constantinople was the enigmatical city of richness and wealth, envied by Italian merchants during Comnenian and Macedonian Dynasties, when it had had its first Fall to the Latins in 1204. Finally at its second Fall to the Ottomans in 1453, it was a half-ruined city whose population might at the most have numbered fifty thousand. The unique architectural heritage it possessed was inherited to the Ottoman Empire. As a part of this cultural heritage, three Mid-Byzantine monuments, which highlight the urban fabric and are unique historical assets, conveying valuable information about the architectural styles, building techniques, decorative arts and social life of Medieval Constantinople, were chosen as three case-studies for this paper. Within the light of their preservation status and the limits of intervention to them, the attitude of the Ottoman Empire against Byzantine heritage can be deduced. Mehmet II, who perceived himself as the Eastern Roman Emperor after his conquest and was ambitious to conquer the Western Roman Empire after the Eastern one, became famous as an open-minded and reformist sultan. But his successors were not as tolerant as he was, and by the time of Sultan Suleiman in the 16 th century a certain domination of the Muslims in the city with the hegemony of the monumental religious complexes of the sultans is clearly distinguishable. Özet OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU'NUN BİZANS MİMARİ MİRASINA YAKLAŞIMI VE BAŞKENTİN FETİH SONRASI KENTSEL DÖNÜŞÜMÜ Roma ve daha sonra da Doğu Roma İmparatorluklarının başkenti olan Konstantinopolis, ilk düşüşünü, 1204 yılında Latinlere karşı yaşadığında, Komnenos ve Makedon hanedanları döneminde İtalyan tüccarlar tarafından gıpta edilen, özenilen zenginliklere sahip bir şehirdir. 1453'teki Osmanlı fethi sırasında ise, artık nüfusu en fazla elli bin olan yarı yıkılmış bir yerleşimdir. Sahip olduğu eşsiz mimari miras, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'na miras kalmıştır. Bu kültürel mirasın ve kent dokusunun önemli bir parçası olan ve Ortaçağ Konstantinopolisi'nin mimari stilleri, yapım teknikleri, dekoratif sanatları ile toplumsal yaşamı hakkında değerli bilgiler taşıyan üç Orta-Bizans dönemi anıt, bu makalede üç vaka olarak incelenmiştir. Bu anıtların korunmuşluk durumları ve onlara yapılmış müdahalelerin sınırları ışığında, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Bizans mimari mirasına karşı tutumu üzerinde bir takım varsayımlarda bulunulabilir. İstanbul'un fethinden sonra kendisini Doğu Roma İmparatoru olarak gören ve Doğu Roma'dan sonra Batı Roma'yı da fethetmek için iddialı olan II. Mehmed, açık fikirli ve reformist bir sultan olarak ünlenmiştir. Fakat haleflerinin
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.