Building an Ottoman Landscape: the Complexes of Sinân Pasha on the Imperial Roads of Syria

Marianne BOQVIST 363

BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE: THE COMPLEXES OF SINÂN PASHA ON THE IMPERIAL ROADS OF SYRIA

INTRODUCTION S inân Pasha (1520-1596)1 was a great architectural patron who founded numerous buildings all over the Ottoman Empire.2 None of these foundations involved the construction and maintenance of as many reli- gious and utilitarian buildings as his endowment in the province of Damascus; this foundation was ordered during his first appointment as grand vizier (1580-1582),3 and mostly completed during his governorship of that province (1586-1588).4 The waqf included buildings in the city of Damascus and in the (then) village of Acre, but more importantly, the often disregarded three roadside complexes on the imperial roads between

Marianne BOQVIST, researcher, deputy director, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, P.K. 125, TR-34433 Beyoglu, Istanbul. [email protected]

1 This paper is part of an ongoing research project, funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and running until the summer of 2012. The conclusions drawn at this stage are thus still preliminary and hypothetical. I would like to thank the Syrian Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the Syrian Department of Antiquities and Museums as well as the Turkish Ministry of Culture. Without their authorisations I would not have been able to get access to any of the material presented in this paper. I would also like to thank Vanessa Van Renterghem, Stephen McPhillips and the editors of this special feature for their comments and corrections to different versions of this paper, as well as St. McPhillips and Paul Wordsworth for their invaluable help with developing the map (fig. 1). 2 ÖZ, 1946; BAYRAM, 1999. 3 HEYD, 1960, p. 110-113. 4 MEHMED SÜREYYA, 1996, vol. 5, p. 1512; PASCUAL, 1983, p. 32-34.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 363 3/10/12 11:01 364 MARIANNE BOQVIST

Fig. 1. Map of the geographical situation of Sinân Pasha’s complexes on the imperial roads of Syria (design: Marianne Boqvist)

Istanbul and Cairo: the so-called imperial imarets (‘imâra ‘âmira) in Qu†ayfa, Sa‘sa‘, and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr.5 These three imperial imarets are of particular interest, not only because they were part of such a big and important endowment, but also because, as far as we know, the Ottomans built remarkably few imarets in the Arab provinces and all of them were concentrated in Syria: five in Damascus and its neighbourhood and ten on the roads leading to other cities and regions.6

5 VGM 629-523 and VGM 583-188, fol. 1a-1b. Different aspects of this endowment and some of the buildings within it have previously been studied; cf. MEINECKE, 1978, p. 584-585; PASCUAL, 1983; ARNÂ’Û™, 1993; WEBER, 1997-1998, p. 436, p. 439, p. 442, p. 445, ill. 11; KAFESCIOGLU, 1999, p. 74-76; MEIER, 2007. 6 In Damascus: the two sultanic foundations of the Takiyya Salîmiyya and the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya, the AÌmadiyya by ≤emsi AÌmad Pasha, the Mawlawiyya and the one in Masjid al-Qadam by Küçük AÌmad Pasha; on the roads outside the city: the three complexes that are the focus of this paper as well as those of Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha in Qunay†ira and Fâ†ima Khâ†ûn in Jenin, that of Hasseki Hürrem in Jerusalem, those in Îisya and al-Nabak by ∑âliÌ

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 364 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 365

No building complex of this kind, generally referred to as a takiyya, was founded in Egypt or elsewhere in North Africa.7 Dependent on the context, an Ottoman imaret could be associated with a multifunctional building complex, or with the food distribution facility included as part of some of these complexes.8 Three days of free hospi- tality for pilgrims and travellers had been the standard practice in similar institutions in the time of the Seljuqs. These Ottoman imarets that offered food and shelter free of charge for up to three months were thus a way to emphasise the generosity of the new rulers.9 In addition, the presence of a public kitchen seems to have been particularly important for an imperial designation and in theory only the complexes promoted by members of the Ottoman royal family were allowed to distribute food free of charge.10 The complexes discussed below were founded in collaboration with the sultan, but the imperial label vanished with time and only the name of Sinân Pasha remained in use. The food distribution, however, was maintained, at least until the 18th century.11 The aim of this paper is to present some preliminary thoughts on the multifaced intentions that lay behind the foundation of Sinân Pasha’s endowment in Bilâd al-Shâm. In addition to determining how these complexes related to Ottoman and local architectural traditions, it considers why they were founded at this time and on this particular road. It also discusses how the foundations related to the financial and political interests of Sinân Pasha and/or the Ottoman state, and to the importance of the state-controlled pilgrimage and trade.

Due to the lack of detailed information on the buildings’ spatial organisation and shape in Sinân Pasha’s endowment deed, the architectural analysis is based on a study of written source materials, in conjunction with an analysis of the complexes spatial and material aspects. These in turn are compared to similar complexes built in the same province by

Pasha as well as two others in the region; cf. MEIER, 2007, p. 148. Other similar complexes in the province were those in Payas by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, Beilan by Sulaymân the Magnificent and Zanbaqiyya by Sinân Pasha. 7 ERGIN, NEUMANN, SINGER eds., 2007, p. 46; MEIER, 2007, p. 141. 8 Food distribution was in general the facility that received the most attention; cf. ERGIN, NEUMANN, SINGER eds., 2007, p. 13. 9 NEUMANN, 2007, p. 284. 10 Ibid., p. 283. 11 E.g., for Qu†ayfa, cf. THÉVENOT, 1727, p. 85-87, and GREENE, 1736, p. 31.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 365 3/10/12 11:01 366 MARIANNE BOQVIST

another patron or in other provinces by Sinân Pasha himself. This cross- disciplinary approach provides a broader (and thus hopefully more solid) information basis from which conclusions can be drawn. More evidence on the circumstances of the foundation and its subsequent historical development can certainly still be found; yet thus far, the imperial orders (Mühimme Defterleri) are the only published source pro- viding us with information on the sultan’s involvement in Sinân Pasha’s foundation.12 The two most important Syrian buildings considered here for comparative purposes are Murâd Çelebi’s complex in Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mân, at the north of Hama, and Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha’s one in Qunay†ira, located on the road between the Sa‘sa‘ and the ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr complexes (fig. 1). Valuable comparisons are also to be made with other complexes on the same, roughly contemporary roads.13 Sinân Pasha’s endowments in Uzuncaova (Bulgaria), Kaçanik (Kosovo), and Malkara (Turkish Thrace) are also important to consider because, although only few of their buildings are still standing, the endowment deeds are available.14

THE THREE IMARETS IN QU™AYFA, SA‘SA‘ AND ‘UYÛN AL-TUJJÂR

The village of Qu†ayfa, 30 km north of Damascus, was an important junction on the roads towards the north (Aleppo-Istanbul) and the east (Palmyra-Baghdad). The importance of this village as a stop on these roads was emphasised by the foundation of a khân for travellers by Nûr al-Dîn ibn Zangî in the 12th century.15 Sinân Pasha did not include this khân in his complex but chose for its construction a site close by. This complex has survived in a reasonable state of preservation and is described in several travel accounts as well as by J. Sauvaget in 1937.16 Parts of

12 HEYD, 1960, p. 110-113. There is potentially still considerable relevant documentation in the Ba≥bakanlık Ar≥ivi and in the Topkapı archives in Istanbul as well as in the Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü archives in Ankara. This is why the conclusions drawn in this paper must be considered preliminary. 13 Cf. SAUVAGET, 1937, and MEIER, 2007, p. 148. 14 KALEsI, 1972; SCHWARTZ, KURIO ed., 1983; HAASE, 1991. 15 The village was also included in his endowment. For more information, cf. SAUVAGET, 1939, p. 49; ZAKARIYYÂ, 1955, vol. 1, p. 198-199. 16 For instance, THÉVENOT, 1727, p. 85-87, gives a detailed description of the complex, khân, mosque, café and bathhouse. Other descriptions have been provided by GREENE,

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 366 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 367

it are still in use and have most likely been restored in recent years, especially the mosque used by the people in Qu†ayfa, and the caravanserai used as military barracks.17 A fortified wall enclosed the complex, whose main entrance opened on a vaulted market (arasta) comprising ten shops, a bakery and a coffee shop, all of them vaulted. The arasta opened to the immediate right towards the bathhouse, composed of a summer and a winter dressing room, a hot room and smaller domed chambers. This market also served as an access to the open court whence one entered the enclosed courtyard of the single-domed Friday mosque on the left and a caravanserai on the right. The latter was rectangular in shape with domed rooms on two floors and a rectangular fountain in the centre of the courtyard. The u-shaped, cross- vaulted public kitchen was accessible only through this caravanserai and was located in between this building and the enclosing wall (fig. 2 and 3).

Sa‘sa‘ is situated on the road between Damascus and Cairo (Via Maris), approximately 30 km south-west of Damascus and only 10 km north of Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha’s imperial imaret in Qunay†ira. Sinân Pasha’s foundation here responded to the fact that travellers suffered from an increas- ing threat of Bedouin raiding towards the end of the 16th century.18 We also know this from the travel account of S. Schweigger, who passed by at the time Sinân Pasha was founding these complexes on an earlier structure that had burnt down.19 An order was made through the imperial treasury to build a fortress with towers that could host 200 households. The project budget was estimated at 3 000-4 000 gold pieces and it was stipulated that the work should be personally supervised by the governor of Damascus, who was also expected to keep record of the costs and to make sure that “good” peasants and fortress guards settled in the complex.20 In addition, the governor was required to personally attend the

1736, p. 37; SEETZEN, 1854, p. 26. Finally, BIDDULPH, 1609, p. 40, says that he stopped in “Cotifey” on his way to Damascus where he “lodged in a very stately new Cane, built by Synan Bashaw”. 17 SAUVAGET, 1937, p. 117-120; CEZAR, 1983, p. 153-154. SEETZEN, 1854, p. 26, says that the complex is intact, but not as well looked after as it should be, a statement that proves that it was still in use after the earthquake of 1759. 18 HEYD, 1960, p. 110-113. 19 When S. Schweigger passed by Sa‘sa‘ in May 1581, he reports an attack that resulted in the destruction of the khân by Bedouins; cf. ibid., p. 114. 20 Ibid., p. 112-113.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 367 3/10/12 11:01 368 MARIANNE BOQVIST

Fig. 2. Qu†ayfa: plan (Sauvaget, 1937, p. 119, fig. 25).

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 368 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 369

Fig. 3. Overview of the complex in Qu†ayfa (photo: Marianne Boqvist).

building site of a fortress big enough to house ten fortress guards and thirty horsemen.21 A total of thirteen builders, carpenters, stonecutters and day labourers from Damascus and its vicinity were hired to work in Sa‘sa‘.22 In Sa‘sa‘, the exterior fortified wall with its polygonal corner towers and the monumental entrance gate are still in place (fig. 4 and 5), built in small well-preserved limestone masonry. Unfortunately, most of the buildings inside this wall have been removed, ruined or heavily restored. Some of this destruction was due to earthquakes, although for the removal of building materials local inhabitants were probably also to blame. Our understanding of the complex is based on comparison between the endowment deed building list, the description by Evliya Çelebi, who visited Sa‘sa‘ in the 1670s, historical photographs and what currently remains on the site.23 The single-domed mosque was in the centre of the

21 Ibid., p. 180. 22 Ibid., p. 113, n. 13, n. 17, n. 18. 23 EVLIYÂ ÇELEBI, 2005, p. 265, and KIEL, 2001.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 369 3/10/12 11:01 370 MARIANNE BOQVIST

Fig. 4. Sa‘sa‘, wall and towers (photo: Marianne Boqvist).

Fig. 5. Sa‘sa‘, main entrance (photo: Marianne Boqvist).

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 370 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 371

Fig. 6. Sa‘sa‘, interior (photo: Marianne Boqvist).

fortified enclosure and fronted by a fountain.24 A vaulted market led from the main entrance to this single-domed mosque, opening on a bathhouse, a public kitchen with eight domes, a bakery and storerooms joining the passage leading to the kitchen. The complex also had a maktab, a primary school for young Muslim boys, and a vaulted space with a chimney.25 Shelter for animals and travellers as well as storage space was provided in two-storied buildings (probably accessible through domed galleries) on the sides of the complex. Only ruins of these parts remain today (fig. 6). Outside the main entrance to the complex was a fort (no longer in existence), permanently guarded by approximately twenty soldiers. The complex also had a state-supported weekly market outside of these premises.

24 This is visible for instance in a satellite view on Google Maps: http://maps.google. com/maps?ll=33.289207,36.023148&spn=0.001821,0.002328&t=f&ecpose= 33.28820546,36.02314814,958.24,-0.005,56.491,0&lci=com.youtube.all&z=19. 25 MARDAM BEK, 1956, p. 125.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 371 3/10/12 11:01 372 MARIANNE BOQVIST

The complex in ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr26 was located on the same road, at the south-west of Sa‘sa‘, close to the junction of the roads towards Egypt or Jerusalem and Hebron. In 1581, local officials reported to the sultan that this important site had become a meeting place for rebellious Bedouins and brigands who were a threat to the safety of Muslim pilgrims and traders on the road to Egypt. It was suggested that a fortified khân with a permanent military garrison should be built here to rectify this situation.27 Orders were then sent to Sinân Pasha, then grand vizier, to build a complex in this location. There is little left of the complex, and photographic evidence from the Creswell photographic archives shows a complex in a very ruined state in the first half of the 20th century.28 At the same time, the shape of the towers and the enclosure walls, and the nature of the masonry, still bear witness to a striking similarity with what we see in Sa‘sa‘. This can probably be explained by the fact that the same work teams worked at these two sites. According to the Ottoman archival sources mentioned above, Sinân Pasha was asked to take on the responsibility for the construction of a complex including a bath house, six shops, a mill, a coffee- shop, a Friday mosque, a public kitchen with storage rooms (anbâr) and two khâns, one of which was a fortress financed by the state treasury and the other a caravanserai financed by Sinân Pasha himself.29 This was confirmed by another document stating that the construction work in Sa‘sa‘ and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr was financed by Sinân Pasha and the fortresses adjacent to them were built by the state and paid for by tax revenues.30 The funds for these building sites were raised from the Damascus treasury against the sealed receipts of the local administrators Îajjî Îasan, jâwish of the court and superintendent of the two building sites, and Îasan, beg of Safad and inspector of the ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr fortress.31 Sinân Pasha was to reimburse the imperial treasury from his private for- tune.

26 EVLIYÂ ÇELEBI, 2005, p. 225, and KIEL, 2001. 27 HEYD, 1960, p. 101 and p. 110-114. 28 I have not had the possibility myself to visit this site, this is why its description is less detailed than the other two. For the Creswell photographs, cf. http://creswell.ashmo leuan.museum/archive/EA.CA.5196.html, and http://creswell.ashmoleuan.museum/ archive/EA.CA.5194.html, accessed on 15 May 2012. 29 HEYD, 1960, p. 110-113. 30 Ibid., p. 114. 31 Administrator of Hasseki Hürrem’s waqf in Jerusalem in 987/1579, according to ibid., p. 58 and p. 114.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 372 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 373

The involvement of family members in this endowment seems to have been important, as can be seen from the subsequent appointment of Sinân Pasha’s son as governor of the province when the mosque in Damascus was inaugurated.32

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: OTHER IMARETS IN SYRIA AND IMARETS FOUNDED BY SINÂN PASHA IN OTHER LOCATIONS

The first imperial imarets to be built in the region following the Takiyya Salîmiyya and the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya in Damascus were those of Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha in Qunay†ira and Fa†ima Khâtûn in Jenin. The one in Qunay†ira is particularly interesting in that its written description included in the endowment deed is sufficiently detailed for us to get an approximate idea of its spatial organisation, structures and building material, some of which had features in common with the complex in Sa‘sa‘. For instance the endowment deed claims that the Friday mosque of this complex was built with rare and expensive building materials, otherwise only found in an urban context. Yet, according to the same source, these materials were associated to the local architectural vocabulary rather than to that of the central Ottoman lands. The complex was guarded by 42 soldiers, a larger military force than the ones in Qu†ayfa (22), Sa‘sa‘ (21), and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr (28),33 even if all four public kitchens served the same amount of people: 400 per day.

Murâd Çelebi’s complex in Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mân, on the road between Aleppo and Hama, is another interesting example in this context, since it is similar to that in Qu†ayfa in organisation and design and contemporary to Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha’s foundation. As in Qu†ayfa, the layout of this complex was quite similar to the symmetrical space organisation known in the architecture of the central Ottoman provinces. Yet this complex did not have a Friday mosque, but a small domed masjid in the centre of its courtyard, adjacent to a domed fountain on pillars. The masjid had also a sabîl on its outer qibla wall. This was a Seljuq architectural tradition

32 LAOUST trans., 1952, p. 190-191. 33 HEYD, 1960, p. 190.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 373 3/10/12 11:01 374 MARIANNE BOQVIST

often found in Anatolia that was introduced in Syria by the Ottomans.34 It is possible that the position of the mosque in the centre of the courtyard in the Sa‘sa‘ complex could be affiliated to this spatial organisation, despite it being a single-domed Friday mosque, in the Ottoman provincial style. This remains to be explored. The roadside complexes in Qu†ayfa, Sa‘sa‘ and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr were affiliated to the same architectural tradition as the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya, both in terms of symmetrical space organisation, and in the shape of the buildings, although they were built on a less monumental scale. Similar complexes were built in Îisya, al-Nabak, Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mân, Jisr al- Shughûr, although these were not imperial imarets and did not include any food-producing facilities. Only the complex in Zanbaqiyya, on the road between Jisr al-Shughûr and Hama in northern Syria (fig. 1), supposedly also built by Sinân Pasha, included an imaret together with baths and a caravanserai.35 The Îisya complex had also a masjid in the centre of its courtyard, and the one in al-Nabak included a single-domed mosque. Both these complexes were built by ∑aliÌ Pasha in the early 17th century. They were said to have been built on the same pattern as the one in Qu†ayfa.36 In addition, one traveller referred to both of them as the work of Sinân Pasha.37 If we look for comparisons beyond Bilâd al-Sham, Sinân Pasha was responsible for at least three complexes designated as imperial imarets in their endowment deeds, namely those in Uzuncaova, Kaçanik and Malkara.38 Uzuncaova was located in a narrow mountain pass, at a nine- days distance from Istanbul, in a place where the (trade) routes from Plovdiv to Edirne, from the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the Danube met.39 Sultan Bayezid (regn. 1481-1512) had built a khân on the site that was restored by Sinân Pasha, who during his march towards Belgrade in 1001/1593, ordered the foundation of another khân, a Friday mosque, a public kitchen, two bathhouses and shops at the same place.40 He also ordered the settlement of two villages in the neighbourhood of

34 Another example is Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha’s caravanserai in Damascus, known as the Khân al-Bâshâ; cf. WATZINGER, WULZINGER, 1924, p. 53-54. 35 ÖZ, 1946, p. 193, no 250, founded in 998/1589. It was noted by Sauvaget (1937, p. 98) as destroyed when he passed the area in the 1930s. Cf. ZAKARIYYÂ, 1934, p. 118. 36 MUÎIBBÎ, 1970, vol. II, p. 242-243. 37 SEETZEN, 1854, p. 26. 38 SCHWARTZ, KURIO ed., 1983; KALESI, 1972; HAASE, 1991. 39 HAMMER-PURGSTALL, 1834, p. 584. 40 According to SCHWARTZ, KURIO ed., 1983, p. 4, he invested 30 000 ghurûsh of his private funds in this foundation.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 374 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 375

his new foundation. This action could be linked to the settlement strategy propagated in Sa‘sa‘, where 200 families were ordered to settle the imperial imaret.41 The foundation of the imaret in Uzuncaova was obviously related to the military campaign for the conquest of Belgrade and was thus used as a symbol of Ottoman presence in this location. It must also have served to protect traders and pilgrims. Sinân Pasha also established a yearly market that took place every autumn in Uzuncaova; today, only the mosque, transformed into a church, and possibly the entrance of one of the khâns remain of all this.42 The mosque-church is clearly affiliated to the local Ottoman architecture, built in a pale limestone and covered with a domed lead-covered roof. The Kaçanik complex was built by Sinân Pasha to secure the road between Bosnia and Macedonia and was founded in 994/1586. It con- sisted of a Friday mosque, a public kitchen, (imperial imaret), two khâns, a maktab and a bathhouse.43 Out of these buildings only the mosque is still standing, another mosque built in the local Ottoman style, a single- domed building, made of sober limestone and covered with a lead roof. In Malkara, Sinân had a farm where he spent his four-year exile after his failure with the Persian campaign in 1581, after his grand vizierate. There he founded an ‘imâra, rooms (buyût) for travellers, two ribâ†s and water works.44 There seems to be no remains left of this complex today. These complexes in the Balkans are less well preserved than those in Syria, most of them were already destroyed in the late 17th century during the Habsburg invasion (1689), or when the Balkan states became inde- pendent, in the 19th century. Generally only the mosques have survived, occasionally together with some of the commercial buildings. Not having had the opportunity yet to see these buildings, the only pertinent statement thus far is that they all were built in the local Ottoman provincial style, which was also the case of the Syrian foundations. By comparing the different complexes founded by Sinân Pasha, it becomes obvious that the Syrian ones included more facilities. This could be due to their location in remote regions that needed to be repopulated, or where there was a need for these facilities, or where it was more important to display Ottoman presence than it was in the Balkans.

41 HEYD, 1960, p. 188. 42 According to SCHWARTZ, KURIO ed., 1983, p. 9, the mosque was converted into a church in 1906. 43 KALESI, 1972, p. 280-281, and KIEL, 2001, p. 109. 44 HAASE, 1991, p. 141-143.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 375 3/10/12 11:01 376 MARIANNE BOQVIST

The variety of buildings included in an imaret seems to be quite con- stant: the primary difference between an ordinary and an imperial complex was its role in food distribution. It is this difference, and the shape of the building, that distinguishes the Ottoman buildings from the local ones. This brings us to the subsequent question of how the Ottoman concept of imperial imaret related to an architecture closely tied to the centre of the Empire and to the local architectural tradition.

IMPERIAL IMARETS: IMPERIAL OR LOCAL ARCHITECTURE?

Contrary to what one may think of such an imperial Ottoman phenom- enon, there was no standard model for the Ottoman imaret, probably due to the fact that imarets had to be adapted to the geographical situation of each site. What they all probably had in common was that they were built under the responsibility of the office of the royal architects. This office seems to have worked with architectural drawings that could have been sent to the different building sites. The actual use of these drawings is presently not very well known. From what can be observed in the sites in Syria, they were probably a source of inspiration for local supervisors, although the final result depended on the skills of master builders and workmen, as well as on the building material available in each site.45 This probably lays behind the formation of a local imperial Ottoman architecture in Damascus and its region that kept some forms common to imperial Ottoman architecture such as the characteristic single-domed mosques. These mosques were generally built on a quadrangular base, preceded by a loggia flanked by pointed polygonal minarets and often enclosed within a domed gallery, where reused classical columns were crowned by lozenge capitals and in the centre of which there was a rectangular pool. Other characteristic architectural features included the use of domed spaces in places that in the local architecture would have been (most commonly cross-)vaulted. Another characteristic Ottoman element in these buildings was the structure of the caravanserais where the ground floor (for the animals) was composed of two parallel rows of ribless vaults

45 Mi‘mâr Sinân built just over 20 both imperial and non-imperial imarets, but there is no common layout for all of them; ERGIN, NEUMANN, SINGER eds., 2007, p. 27.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 376 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 377

on a central pillar.46 Other “Ottoman” architectural features were, for instance, the spatial simplification of bathhouses, where the characteristic Ottoman bath had two bigger rooms, one cold and one hot instead of the local tradition of three smaller ones (cold, warm and hot). Other new features introduced in the Syrian architecture through these foundations were the coffee-shops as well as the public kitchens in a roadside context. Finally, the maktab was an additional Ottoman import.

At the same time as many innovations were introduced, each building complex bore its own local architectural tradition.47 In Syria this implied that although the layout of the single-domed mosques was clearly Otto- man in form, the profile of the domes as well as the drum that supported them was affiliated to the local way of dome-building. In addition, these domes were plastered and not covered with sheets of lead, which was the common practice in Anatolia and the Balkans. Building material used for ornamentation was also an indicator of the importance of a building and of the status of its architectural patron. The degree of central Ottoman influence in Sa‘sa‘ is particularly obvious in the decoration on the main entrance, where sculpted flowers flanking the inscription on the main gate as well as the sculpted interior of the door could be compared to the main gate of Sinân Pasha’s mosque in Damascus, where we can see the same flowers sculpted in marble.48 We have not been able to characterise the type of stone used for this motif in Sa‘sa‘, but considering the degree of preservation it must either be marble or a very hard limestone (fig. 5). It is interesting to note that this probably was not the work of a Damascene workman. Decoration inside the mosque in this complex is clearly affiliated to the Damascene architecture, in particular the sculpted medallions and framings filled with black and red colour paste. One can thus conclude that this complex displayed its imperial Ottoman affiliation outside and its Damascene one inside. In the Qu†ayfa mosque, architectural decoration was even rarer, although the limestone masonry is very fine (similar to that in Ma‘arrat

46 KIEL, 1990, p. 137-138. 47 ERGIN, NEUMANN, SINGER eds., 2007, p. 28. 48 The buildings founded by Sinân Pasha in Damascus contained great numbers of precious building material. For instance, his Friday mosque in Damascus was one of the three monuments in the city that had a lead covered dome together with the Omayyad mosque and the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 377 3/10/12 11:01 378 MARIANNE BOQVIST

al-Nu‘mân). The painted gypsum lunettes positioned over the windows in the prayer hall could either be a provincial version of similar painted lunettes in the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya or an imitation of the tiles produced in Damascus and used for instance in the Sinâniyya mosque and in the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya. We know from the documents mentioned above that Damascene work teams were sent to Sa‘sa‘ and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr. For Qu†ayfa no such information has been found so far.

DISCUSSION

Imarets and their impact on the neighbouring areas

The imarets historical use as a nucleus of a new settlement, a suburb, or as a pacifying element in insecure areas, is relevant in this context as all three complexes were founded in areas that were out of Ottoman control.49 In fact, the insecurity in this type of rural areas was a reason for the abandonment of the rural environment in the second half of the 16th century, which in its turn led to a decrease in travel security at a time when the Ottoman state needed these roads to be secure for the state supported caravans. The study of cadastral records of the neighbouring sanjaq of Hawran shows that there was a decrease in the population just after the Ottoman conquest.50 As the travellers’ security was particularly threatened by the depopulation of these areas on the border between settled areas and Bedouin territory, the establishment of loyal farmers with tax-exempt status and horse caretakers in the area was one attempted solution. They probably provided a population equivalent to approximately 250 families.51 Since thus far none of the cadastral records from this particular region have been studied, we still do not know where the populations brought to these areas came from. The records of the neighbouring area inform us that there were twenty-five Turcoman tribes in the Hawran in the 16th century and that Turcoman soldiers (sipâhî) were given revenues from cul- tivated land (timar) to guard routes.52 This information corresponds to that of the 1560 kânûnnâme that designated Turcomans in the Damascus

49 NEUMANN, 2007, p. 280. 50 BAKHIT, 1982, p. 227. 51 HEYD, 1960, p. 101, p. 126-127, p. 190, and BAKHIT, 1982, p. 97-98 and p. 220-221. 52 BAKHIT, 1982, p. 226.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 378 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 379

region as settlers and not as Bedouins.53 It also corresponds to ‘Abd al- Ghanî al-Nâbulusî’s travel account, according to which Turcoman tribes on the road between Sa‘sa‘ and Jerusalem treated him well.54 These settlers probably abandoned the region during the instability periods at the beginning of the 17th century or in the 18th century and were replaced by other Turcoman and Dagestani populations transferred to this area by the Ottoman authorities in the 19th century.55 An additional question to this section is whom were these complexes built for. It is most likely that the number of pilgrims and other travellers passing these roadside complexes was greater than the number of per-day served (approximately 400) meals, which raises the question of whom were they intended for and how this might have changed over time. Information of this type is provided in travel accounts. Thus J. Greene, an 18th-century traveller, was positively surprised to find that travellers could eat and get comfortable shelter for both themselves and their cattle free of charge in this location.56 R. Pococke who passed by the same complex a few years later reports to have stayed “in a very fine kane, which has a portico round it” in “Kteiphe”, but notes that free provisions and shelter was no longer available.57 This could indicate that this practice was already out of use by that time or that there was a temporary interruption of the services provided. Sinân Pasha’s endowment deeds include stipulations on food distribution, similar to the Takiyya Sulaymâniyya ones that separated meals for the common poor from meals for more distinguished guests.58 This distinction does not however seem to have been the common Ottoman policy.59 There is a possibility that the original endowment deed of Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha’s foundation uses the same formulation.60 This could have been a Syrian particularity or a response to the fact that there were some kind of richer, more important travellers on this road that would have deserved special treatment at the time of the foundation of these com-

53 Ibid., p. 227. 54 Ibid., p. 228, n. 185. 55 ZAKARIYYÂ, 1955, p. 539. 56 GREENE, 1736, p. 36-37. 57 POCKOCKE, 1745, p. 43. 58 On the stipulations concerning different dishes on Fridays and Ramadan and for special guests, cf. MEIER, 2007, p. 130-131. 59 KIEL, 2001, p. 110. 60 MEIER, 2007, p. 142, brings our attention to the fact that there could be a scribal error in this text.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 379 3/10/12 11:01 380 MARIANNE BOQVIST

plexes, such as, for instance, Ottoman officials or merchants associated with the Red Sea trade. In some cases, the mosques in these complexes seem to have been larger than necessary, given the likely number of travellers visiting the khân. This could be related to the sultan’s intention to found more permanent settlements in these locations. There is evidence that the villagers used these mosques in the 19th century, but so far we do not know who had access to them at the time of their foundation.61

Imarets economy and interregional trade

The economic factor of commercial interest in the Red Sea trade must also be taken into consideration when examining imaret complexes as they were a key to the safe passage of goods and itinerant traders and thus important for the prosperity of the region as were the taxes for the well-being of the Empire.62 The Via Maris was one of the most important trade routes of the Empire, with khâns at the most one daytrip apart that generated significant amounts of tax income.63 Markets were established outside of the Sa‘sa‘ and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr complexes on the sultan’s order in 1582. These markets gathered great numbers of merchants, local artisans and travellers every week.64 In comparison, the Uzuncaova complex had one of the most important markets in Rumeli. Another important factor in this context was the protection of the overland route of the Red Sea trade that passed through Egypt. This was an imperial concern, but Sinân Pasha’s foundations and mer- chant facilities on the imperial roads must also be put into the context of his personal investments in the Red Sea trade during his second governorship of Egypt ten years earlier (1571-1574). This included the pur- chase of part of the Red Sea trading fleet as well as the endowment of grain conservation warehouses for the pilgrimage caravan in the port of Bulaq, in Cairo.65 It must consequently have been important to Sinân Pasha to secure the road and to provide facilities for itinerant traders as well as possibilities

61 ‘ALI BEY, 1816, p. 325, says that the Qu†ayfa mosque was used as a village mosque in 1803-1807. This was also the case in Qunay†ira and still is in Sa‘sa‘. 62 INALCIK, QUATAERT, 1994, p. 490. 63 HÜTTEROTH, ABDULFATTAH, 1977, p. 92. 64 BAKHIT, 1982, p. 221; HEYD, 1960, p. 64. 65 HANNA, 1983, p. 30.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 380 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 381

for storage and sale of goods along the way. The rivalry between Lala MuÒ†afâ and Sinân Pasha earlier on in their career, both ambitious high officials vying for the position of grand vizier, may have been one of the reasons why Sinân Pasha agreed (or wished) to build complexes and to establish markets that could compete with the complexes of Lala MuÒ†afâ and his wife (in Jenin). An additional argument in favour of this hypo- thesis was the death of Lala MuÒ†afâ in 1580. He was thus no longer able to defend his properties in this region when Sinân founded his. It is possible that Murâd III was aware of this situation and used it as an argument to motivate his grand vizier to invest in the need for increased security of traders and travellers in the region towards the end of the 16th century. Founding such a big endowment also implied considerable prestige for the governor’s family. We know for instance that his son was governing Damascus at the time of the inauguration of the mosque.66 This follows Casale’s argument that Sinân Pasha was representative of a new type of high official that combined his private resources with state finances;67 his observations on a trend of intense involvement of Ottoman high officials in construction works in the last third of the 16th century appear particularly valid when considering the foundation of these three imperial imarets.

CONCLUSION

An appropriation of the landscape through the establishment of Ottoman complexes including facilities that travellers never before had had access to in Syria was of utmost importance to the sultan. In this case we can state that the use of buildings included in the complexes was completely new in this province and connected to the display of Ottoman presence in the periphery of the Empire. The buildings were most clearly linked to the Ottoman architecture of Damascus, which was the closest urban centre and capital of province; a trend that can be noted in most provinces. There was thus a regional diversity in the architecture, but not in the facilities provided by the Ottoman complexes.

66 PASCUAL, 1983, p. 98. 67 CASALE, 2006, p. 181.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 381 3/10/12 11:01 382 MARIANNE BOQVIST

It is clear from the documentation exploited in this study that these complexes were part of a strategy of ottomanisation of the provinces and of an affirmation of Ottoman control in remote and unsecure places through repopulation. The aim was to establish – or at least to create the impression of – an Ottoman landscape in places bordering the settlement frontier that were never under the real control of the Ottoman state. The sultan’s interest in the safety of pilgrims and travellers moving from Istanbul and Anatolia to Damascus and to Egypt was a political, power demonstration but also a financial issue related to the tax paid at these stops. Sinân Pasha’s personal interest in the Red Sea trade and the safe passage of goods from Egypt to Damascus and beyond still must however have been one of the main reasons why he wanted to finance so many complexes along the same road in one single endowment. Even though both personal and governmental, the motivation for constructing these foundations was clearly linked to the patronage of an ambitious politician.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 382 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 383

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Sources VGM = Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü. VGM 747-216, Lala MuÒ†afâ Pasha. VGM 629-523, Sinân Pasha. VGM 583-188, Sinân Pasha. VGM 747-134, Fâ†ima Khâ†ûn.

Edited Sources

‘ALI BEY, 1816, Travels of ‘Ali Bey in Morocco, Tripoli, Cyprus, Egypt, Arabia, Syria and Turkey between the Years 1803-1807, London, Longman- Hurst-Rees-Orme-Brown, vol. II. ARNÂ’Û™ MuÌammad al- (ed.), 1993, Mu‘†ayât ‘an Dimashq wa-Bilâd al-Shâm al-janûbiyya fî nihâyat al-qarn al-sâdis ‘ashar, Damascus, Dâr al-ÎiÒâd. ARNÂ’Û™ MuÌammad al-, 1994, “Dawr al-waqf fî nushû’ wa-ta†awwur al-mudun khilâl al-‘aÒr al-‘uthmânî: namûdhajân li-l-muqârana min Bilâd al-Balqân wa-Bilâd al-Shâm,” al-Majalla al-târîkhiyya al-‘arabiyya li-l-dirâsât al- ‘uthmâniyya 9-10, p. 45-66. BAKHIT Muhammad Adnan, 1982, The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the Sixteenth Century, Beirut, Librairie du Liban. BAYRAM Sadi, 1999, “Yemen Fatihi Gazi Sinan Pa≥a Vakfiyeleri ve Tezyinati ve Türk Süsleme Sanatındaki Yeri,” in François DÉROCHE et al. (eds), Art turc, Actes du 10e congrès international d’art turc, Geneva, Fondation Max Van Berchem, p. 163-176. BIDDULPH William, 1609, The Travels of certaine Englishmen into Africa, Asia, Troy, Bythnia, Thracia, and to the Blacke Sea, London, Th. Haueland for W. Aspey. BOQVIST Marianne, 2006, Architecture et développement urbain à Damas de la conquête ottomane (922 h./1516-17) à la fondation du waqf de Murad Pasha (1017 h./1607-08), Ph. D. dissertation, Université Paris IV. BÜSCHING Anton Friedrich, 1768, Anton Friedrich Büschings wöchentliche Nachrichten von neuen Landcharten geographischen, statistischen und historischen Buchern und Schriften, Berlin, Haue und Spener Verlag, vol. 1. CASALE Giancarlo, 2006, “The Ottoman Administration of the Spice Trade in the Sixteenth-Century Red Sea and Persian Gulf,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 49/2, p. 170-198. CASALE Giancarlo, 2007, “Global Politics in the 1580s: One Canal, Twenty Thousand Cannibals, and an Ottoman Plot to Rule the World,” Journal of World History 18, p. 267-296. CEZAR Mustafa, 1983, Typical Commercial Buildings of the Ottoman Classical Period and the Ottoman Construction System, Istanbul, Türkiye I≥ Bankası Cultural Publications. ÉCOCHARD Michel, LE CŒUR Claude, 1942-1943, Les Bains de Damas, Beirut, Institut français de Damas, 2 vols.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 383 3/10/12 11:01 384 MARIANNE BOQVIST

ERGIN Nina, NEUMANN Christoph, SINGER Amy (eds), 2007, Feeding People, Feeding Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, Eren. EVLIYÂ ÇELEBI Seyâhatnâmesi, 2005, ed. Yücel Daglı, Istanbul, Yapı Kredi yayınları, vol. IX. EYICE Semavi, 1973, “Sıncanlı’da Sinan Pa≥a Imareti,” Vakıflar Dergisi 10, p. 303-343. FLEISCHER Cornell H., 1986, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: the Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600), Princeton, Princeton University Press. GOODWIN Godfrey, 1971, A History of Ottoman Architecture, London, Thames and Hudson. GREENE John, 1736, A Journey from Aleppo to Damascus, London, W. Mears- T. Boreman-J. Stone-J. Chrichley. HAASE Claus Peter, 1991, “Eine kleinere Waqf-Urkunde Koca Sinan Paschas für Malkara, Thrakien,” Osmanlı Ara≥tırmaları, The Journal of Ottoman Studies 11, p. 129-157. HAMMER-PURGSTALL Joseph von, 1834, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, grösstentheils aus bisher unbenützten Handschriften und Archiven, Pest, Hartleben, vol. II. HANNA Nelly, 1983, An Urban History of Bulaq in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods, Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale. HEYD Uriel, 1960, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1615: a Study of the Firman According to the Mühimme Defteri, Oxford, Clarendon Press. HÜTTEROTH Wolf-Dieter, ABDULFATTAH Kamal, 1977, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century, Erlangen, Palm & Elke. INALCIK Halil, QUATAERT Donald, 1994, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. KAFESCIOGLU Çigdem, 1999, “‘In the Image of Rum’: Ottoman Architectural Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Aleppo and Damascus,” Muqarnas 16, p. 70-96. KALESI Hasan, 1972, “Veliki vezir Kodza Sinan-pasa, njegove zaduzbine i nje- gova vakufnama”, in Hasan KALESI (ed.), Najstarji vakufski dokumenti u Jugoslaviji na arapskom jeziku, Pristina, Zajednica naucnih ustanova Kosova, p. 257-308. KIECHEL Samuel, 1866, Die Reisen des Samuel Kiechel: aus drei Handschriften, ed. Konrad Dieterich Hassler, Stuttgart, Gedruckt auf Kosten des litera- rischen Vereins. KIEL Machiel, 1990, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans, Alder- shot, Variorum. KIEL Machiel, 2001, “The Caravansaray and Civic Centre of Defterdar Murad Çelebi in Ma‘arrat an-Nu‘mân and the Külliye of Yemen Fatihi Sinan Pasha in Sa‘sa‘”, in Nur AKIN, Afife BATUR, Selçuk BATUR (eds.), 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: a Supra-National Heritage, Istan- bul, Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, p. 103-110.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 384 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 385

LAOUST Henri (trans.), 1952, Les Gouverneurs de Damas sous les Mamlouks et les premiers Ottomans (658-1156/1260-1744): traduction des annales d’Ibn ™ulun et d’Ibn Gum‘a, Damascus, Institut français de Damas. MARDAM BEK Khalîl, 1956, Firmân li-wâlî ∑aydâ wa-Shâm bi-khuÒûÒ waqf Lâlâ MuÒ†afâ Bâshâ wa-zawjatihi Fâ†ima Khâ†ûn bint sul†ân al-Ghûrî, Damascus, Waqf Directorate. MEHMED SÜREYYA, 1996, Sicill-i Osmanî, ed. Nuri Akbayar, Istanbul, Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 6 vols. MEIER Astrid, 2007, “For the Sake of God Alone? Food Distribution Policies, Takiyyas and Imarets in Early Ottoman Damascus”, in Nina ERGIN, Chris- toph NEUMANN, Amy SINGER (eds.), Feeding People, Feeding Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, Eren, p. 121-149. MEINECKE Michael, 1978, “Die osmanische Architektur des 16. Jahrhunderts in Damaskus”, in Géza FEHÉR (ed.), Fifth International Congress of Turkish Art Proceedings, Budapest, 21-28 Sept. 1975, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, p. 575-595. MUÎIBBÎ MuÌammad al-Amin b. Fa∂l Allah al-, 1970, KhulâÒat al-athar fî a‘yân al-qarn al-Ìâdî ‘ashar, Beirut, Dâr ∑âdir, 4 vols. NECIPOGLU Gülru, 2005, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, London, Reaktion Books. NECIPOGLU-KAFADAR Gülru, 1986, “Plans and Models in 15th and 16th Century Ottoman Architectural Practice”, The Journal of the Society of Architec- tural Historians 45/3, p. 224-243. NEUMANN Christoph, 2007, “Remarks on the Symbolism of Ottoman Imarets”, in Nina ERGIN, Christoph NEUMANN, Amy SINGER (eds.), Feeding People, Feeding Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, Eren, p. 275-286. ÖZ Tahsin, 1946, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde Yemen Fatihi Sinan Pa≥a Ar≥ivi,” Belleten 10/37, p. 171-193. PASCUAL Jean-Paul, 1983, Damas à la fin du XVIe siècle d’après trois actes de waqf ottomans, Damascus, Institut français de Damas. PETERSEN Andrew, 1989, “Early Ottoman forts on the Darb al-Hajj,” Le- vant XXI, p. 97-117. POCKOCKE Richard, 1745, A Description of the East, and Some Other Countries -II/1- Observations on Palaestine or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia, London. SAUVAGET Jean, 1937, “Les caravansérails syriens du Îadjdj de Constantinople”, Ars Islamica 4, p. 98-121. SAUVAGET Jean, 1939, “Caravansérails syriens du Moyen-Âge -I- Caravansérails ayyoubides”, Ars Islamica 6/1, p. 48-55. SAUVAGET Jean, 1940, “Caravansérails syriens du Moyen-Âge -II- Caravansérails mamelouks”, Ars Islamica 7/1, p. 1-19. SCHUMACHER Gottlieb, 1888, The Jaulân: Surveyed for the German Society for the Exploration of the Holy Land, London, R. Bentley. SCHWARZ Klaus, KURIO Hans (ed.), 1983, Die Stiftungen des osmanischen Gross- wesirs Koga Sinan Pascha (gest. 1596) in Uzungaova/Bulgarien, Berlin, Klaus Schwarz Verlag.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 385 3/10/12 11:01 386 MARIANNE BOQVIST

SEETZEN Ulrich Jasper, 1854, Ulrich Jasper Seetzen’s Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegypten, ed. Friedrich Kruse, Berlin, G. Reimer, vol. 1. THÉVENOT Jean de, 1727, Suite du voyage de Mr de Thévenot au Levant (3d ed.), Amsterdam, M.-Ch. Le Cène, vol. 1. Waqfiyyat Sinân Pasha, 1948, Damascus, Mudîriyyat al-awqâf. WATENPAUGH Heghnar Zeitlian, 2004, The Image of an Ottoman City: Imperial Architecture and Urban Experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th Cen- turies, Leiden-Boston, Brill. WATZINGER Carl, WULZINGER Karl, 1924, Damaskus: die islamische Stadt, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. WEBER Stefan, 1997-1998, “The Creation of Ottoman Damascus: Architecture and Urban Development of Damascus in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” Aram 9-10, p. 431-470. ZAKARIYYÂ AÌmad WaÒfî, 1934, Jawla athariyya fî ba‘∂ al-Bilâd al-Shâmiyya, Damascus, Dâr al-Fikr. ZAKARIYYÂ AÌmad WaÒfî, 1955, Al-Rîf al-Sûrî, Damascus, al-Bayân, 2 vols.

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 386 3/10/12 11:01 BUILDING AN OTTOMAN LANDSCAPE 387

Marianne BOQVIST, Construire un paysage ottoman: les complexes de Sinân Pacha sur les routes impériales syriennes

Dans cette contribution nous proposons une analyse des trois imarets impé- riaux (al-‘imâra al-‘âmira) qui faisaient partie du waqf de Koca Sinân Pacha à Qu†ayfa, Sa‘sa‘ et ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr, sur la partie syrienne de la route impériale entre Istanbul et Le Caire. Nous étudions ces complexes selon plusieurs pers- pectives: nous tentons de comprendre et d’expliquer leur place dans l’architecture ottomane et locale, les raisons de leur fondation à ce moment et en ces endroits précis, dans quelle mesure ces fondations étaient liées aux ambitions et straté- gies financières et politiques personnelles de Koca Sinân Pacha ou de l’État ottoman, enfin comment elles étaient liées au pèlerinage et au commerce. Des comparaisons sont faites avec des complexes similaires en Syrie ainsi qu’avec les complexes de Koca Sinân Pacha à Uzuncaova (Bulgarie), Kaçanik (Kosovo) et Malkara (Thrace turque).

Marianne BOQVIST, Building an Ottoman Landscape: the Complexes of Sinân Pasha on the Imperial Roads of Syria

The aim of this contribution is to analyse the intentions that lay behind the foundation of the three imperial imarets (al-‘imâra al-‘âmira) included in Koca Sinân Pasha’s endowment in the Bilâd al-Shâm, located in Qu†ayfa, Sa‘sa‘, and ‘Uyûn al-Tujjâr, on the imperial roads between Istanbul and Cairo. It discusses their relation to Ottoman and local architectural traditions, the reasons why they were founded at these particular moments and locations, how the foundations related to the financial and political interests of Koca Sinân Pasha and/or the Ottoman state. Comparisons are made with other similar complexes in Syria, as well as with the imperial imarets of Koca Sinân Pasha in Uzuncaova (Bulgaria), Kaçanik (Kosovo), and Malkara (Turkish Thrace).

95310_Turcica43_17_Boqvist.indd 387 3/10/12 11:01