Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’S Works in Trace As Expression of Tangible Heritage

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • 59-68 In search of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’s works in Trace as expression of tangible heritage

Luca ORLANDI [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey

Received: February 2015 Final Acceptance: April 2015

Abstract Te aim of the paper is to describe the ‘Ottoman Landscape’ designed by architect Sinan in the 16th Century, through examples of architectural artifacts like mosques, staging posts, caravanserais, complexes, bath and bridges inside the Turkish border of the Trace region. Te land routes connected the capital of the Ottoman Empire Istanbul to the rest of Europe were important routes crossing the Western lands under the control of the Ottomans, to reach other countries and lands. Tanks to descriptions lef by many travelers, we can today have an idea of the cities, the urban spaces, the landscape and the territories of Trace during the Ottoman time, in a period covering approximately the last fve centuries. A description of Sinan’s works in the territory of Trace is given and analyzed, focusing on interesting aspects related to the choice of the site, the urban planning approach and the architectural features. Nowadays Sinan’s works are still visible in the territory and in the minor centers of Trace, or outside big cities like Istanbul and Edirne. Troughout these investigations and studies we can re-construct and re-shape the enormous heritage lef by him as part of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’, not only considers in terms of specifc and unique monuments that need to be protected, but also as part of a cultural ‘milieu’ that belongs to our contemporary world. Tis landscape needs to be revitalized, to preserve the memory of its historical values and for its future persistence in the territory.

Keywords Heritage, Landscape, Ottoman Architecture, Sinan, Trace. 60

Tis paper will introduce the con- Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox cept of an ‘Ottoman landscape’ en- Christians. Te traces and infuenc- riched by a considerable number of es lef by the Turks and the Ottomans works designed by architect Sinan in almost six hundred years of domi- through the years during the apogee nation and sovereignty are spread out of Ottoman Empire in the second half everywhere, still having a remarkable of the Sixteenth Century. Te border- presence in the territory. Te prov- lands between Turkey and Europe, the ince of Rumelia extending from west- Balkans, being quite rich in terms of ern Turkey to the border of the Aus- architectural artifacts, still carry the trian and Slovenian territories at the traces of the Ottoman hegemony in time reached almost Vienna, included these territories. For this purpose, the countries like Croatia, Hungary, Ro- paper will consider sections of this ge- mania, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, ography, located in Trace, where the Greece, Macedonia, Kosovo and Mon- works of architect Sinan are a notewor- tenegro. Te Turkish word Rumelia (or thy experience of cultural signals. Te Rumeli) can be translated as the Land building layout, the urban scene and of the Rum, as the Turkish populations the territorial transformation of those intended the territories belongs once to lands, seen as a whole, testify a great the Greeks or the Byzantines or more Ottoman cultural heritage currently generally the Romans and passed lat- belonging to Turkey and shared with er under their control. Tis western its neighbors. As a starting point, this province of the Empire comprise of a cultural heritage distributed among striking number of Ottoman works of Turkey and other Eastern European architecture and engineering master- countries today, can be read as an ap- pieces, precisely illustrating the afore- proach for a better integration and sub- mentioned ‘Ottoman landscape’, strict- stantial continuum - hopefully in the ly linked to the Ottoman Civilization. near future - between the Republic of Te works built by Sinan, mosques, Turkey and the European Union. staging posts, caravanserais, complex- Te research on Sinan’s works and es as the basic example of architectural the ‘Ottoman landscape’ in Trace is works as well as the roads, bridges and based on the PhD dissertation thesis, aqueducts being the main examples (Orlandi, 2005) which was discussed at of engineering projects defne the 16th the Polytechnic of Turin in May 2005. Century Ottoman landscape through It was developed inside the PhD pro- small towns and along the caravan gram undertaken and named: “Histo- routes of Trace. In this paper it will be ry and Critic of the Architectural and examined the system routes and tracks Environmental Heritage”. It can be for the caravans and the station posts considered as an interdisciplinary feld locations, called menzilhane, and the research inherent to specifc areas such bridges or other infrastructures lef in architecture, city planning, landscape the territory related to the great archi- architecture, restoration, conservation, tect Sinan as well as their current con- regeneration planning and sustainabil- ditions. ity. Te dissertation thesis investigates Te choice of the Trace region as a and involves diferent felds and sub- case-study is also due to the fact that jects not only related to History of Ar- this area can be regarded as the true chitecture or Urban History neither it heart of the Ottoman State, centered should be merely intended as another around two of the three capitals of the monographic study on Sinan. Part of big empire, the frst being Edirne and this PhD dissertation results was pre- Istanbul the second. So, the choice of 1 Te ‘Sinan’ın sented some years ago to an interna- the region is not solely connected to its kentleri – kentlerde 1 tional audience, during a symposium , relation to the great and unique archi- Sinan imgesi’ (1) and later developed as a publication tecture of Sinan (Figure 1). syposium was (Orlandi, 2009). Te ancient Greeks and Romans organized by Te lands belonging to the Balkan once called the region Tracia or Tra- the Chamber of the Architects of Peninsula are marked by the presence cia, which current translation in En- Kayseri, between of strong multi-ethnical components glish language is Trace; today portion 6th and 9th of April and followers of several religions like of it - known as Trakya by the Turkish 2009.

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • L. Orlandi 61

vated and re-designed by them. Tis was essential for the maintenance of their big empire with all its necessary relations and, of course for strategic purposes as well.2 During their rise in the middle of the Sixteenth Century, the Ottomans were able to establish and develop new cities and villages, commercial centers or simply multi-functional complexes along those roads. Terefore, they built infrastructures like bridges to cross lands and aqueducts to bring water to the towns; designed new roads to increase relationships, trades and com- merce between people and countries, as well as to move armies, to control or to enlarge the empire’s borders, following a policy of territorial expansion, Figure 1. Te Selimiye mosque in Edirne and they transformed the landscape, (Photo @ Luca Orlandi). both in architectural and urban scale, - is the only part of Turkey geograph- by designing several functional ele- ically inside the border of the Euro- ments, urban features and setting land- pean continent and it is divided into marks on it. Tis practice of the Otto- four main administrative sub-regions man civilization both in the conquered today: Istanbul, Edirne, Kırklareli and lands and in their own territories has Çanakkale. Te paper is centered on been well analyzed by Gülru Necipoğlu some specifc spots and places where in her studies; while introducing Sinan Sinan designed some of his master- and his patronage in relation to the terpieces and it doesn’t intend to cover all ritory and the policy, she states that: the architectural production lef by the “Te colonization of space through Ottomans in this region, before and af- settlement […] played a central role ter Sinan. Trough several examples of in Ottoman architectural culture” (Ne- socio-religious or multi-purpose road- cipoğlu, 2005, p. 71). side complexes built by Sinan in those Leaving aside the present condition territories during his long career, the of the routes or the architectural re- impact of his architectural production mains, for an appreciation of an ‘Otto- is still visible, in terms of urban and man landscape’ in Trace, it should also rural landscape and it is possible to be considered the travel literature as a recognize main changes and modifca- primary source in investigation of this tions in the territory itself. kind; in fact, descriptions and sketch- In the Ottoman Empire in fact, the es lef by many travelers, sometimes in land routes connecting Istanbul to the the form of travelogue or in the form of rest of Europe – in other words, link- sketch-books, give very detailed infor- ing the East to the West and vice versa mation which is not always available in the contemporary environment, ofen 2 – were an important network of roads For general compromised by a ‘careless’ modern- information about used by travelers, traders, armies, am- the Ottoman bassadors, pilgrims and others for cen- ization process. Today it is possible to administration of turies. Te land routes, which crossed have a sufcient idea of cities, towns, those territories the Western lands, were entirely under urban spaces, transformed landscape see: Pitcher, the control of the Ottomans; they reach and territories of Trace during the (1972; Beldiceanu, Ottoman time, in a period covering ap- (1980); Bombaci other countries, connecting many im- – Shaw, (1981); portant cities, and were in many cases proximately the last fve-six centuries. İnalcık, (1993); tracing the ancient Roman and Byzan- In this sense, one of the goals of this (1997a); (1997b); tine tracks. In fact these routes, which paper is to understand architect Sinan, Mantran, (1999); had already existed in the past, were his patronage and his architectural and Imber, (2002); engineering production in Trace. İnalcık – Renda, not only used by the Ottomans as they (2002). were, but were even improved, reno- Mostly of Sinan’s works are still vis-

In search of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’s works in Trace as expression of tangible heritage 62 ible in the territory and in the minor centers of Trace, outside and in the surrounding of Edirne, along the roads and in small urban areas; apart from the travelers, these lands were ofen used by the sultans and their courts during their seasonal permanence far from the big city of Istanbul. Centers like Svilengrad (today inside the Bulgari- an border), Havsa, Babaeski, Lülebur- gaz, Çorlu, Çatalca, Büyük Karıştıran, Ipsala, Tekirdağ, Marmara Ereğlisi, Figure 2. Te maksure of Sokollu Kasım Beg Silivri, Büyükçekmece and Küçükçek- in Havsa (Photo @ Luca Orlandi). mece, were important caravan halts on the main land routes arriving from Western countries towards Istanbul 3. Unfortunately, a modern highway – re- ducing travel time between Edirne and Istanbul to three hours - cuts of those minor centers and the trafc runs on a gentle and comfortable road in the middle of the beautiful countryside of Trace, but in the past those almost forgotten minor centers were very important staging posts for the politics Figure 3. Semiz (Cedid) Ali Pasha mosque and the economy of the Empire. in Babaeski (Photo @ Luca Orlandi). All the still existing complexes in Trace, including the ones that are in ruins, like Sokollu Mehmet Pasha or Sokollu Kasım Beg in Havsa; Semiz Ali Pasha in Babaeski; Sokollu Mehmet Pasha in Lüleburgaz; Rüstem Pasha in Tekirdağ; Suleiman and Selim the Sec- ond bridge (under the supervision of Sokollu Mehmet Pasha) in Büyükçek- mece are listed below. Te most important building type among others is the mosque. Examples are: Selimiye and Deferdar Mustafa 3 For further Pasha in Edirne; Sokollu Kasım Beg information in Havsa; Semiz (Cedid) Ali Pasha in about the land Babaeski; Sokollu Mehmet Pasha in routes system in Lüleburgaz; Rüstem Pasha in Tekirdağ; Trace see: Jireček, (1877); Heywood, Semiz Ali Pasha in Marmaraereğlisi; (1976-1977); Davud Ferrah Pasha in Çatalca; Sulei- Figure 4. Sokollu Mehmet Pasha mosque in Heywood, (1980); man Han in Büyükçekmece (Figure 2, Lüleburgaz (Photo @ Luca Orlandi). Cezar, (1983); 3, 4 and 5). Mandel, (1988); What’s more, there are caravan- Cerasi, (1998); Yerasimos, (1991); serais, like: Rüstem Pasha in Edirne; Zachariadou, Sokollu Kasım Beg in Havsa; Sokollu (1996); Mehmet Pasha in Lüleburgaz; Sulei- Zachariadou, man Han in Büyükçekmece; markets (2002); Klusáková, or arasta: Semiz Ali Pasha, Selimiye in (2002). An interesting study Edirne; Sokollu Kasım Beg in Havsa; on the Ottoman Sokollu Mehmet Pasha in Lüleburgaz; cities and town into public baths: Sokollu Mehmet Pasha the Levant can be in Edirne; Sokollu Kasım Beg in Hav- seen in: Eldem – sa; Sokollu Mehmet Pasha in Lülebur- Figure 5. Rüstem Pasha mosque in Tekirdağ Gofman – Masters, (Photo @ Luca Orlandi). (1999). ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • L. Orlandi 63 gaz; bridges: Çoban Mustafa Pasha in beside the buildings or complexes that Svilengrad; Sultan Suleiman in Edirne; are partially in ruins or lost forever, due Sokollu Mehmet Pasha in Lüleburgaz; to a lack of proper preservation or sim- Sokollu Mehmet Pasha (or Sinanlı) in ply by negligence, but also it should be Alpullu; Sokollu Mehmet Pasha (?) in overviewed the literature related to the Marmaracık (Çorlu); Suleiman Han in visual representations of these lands, Silivri; Suleiman Han/ Selim the Sec- in order to give a more precise idea of ond in Büyükçekmece; Odabaşı (?) in what it can be revealed today as an ‘Ot- Halkalı; Kapıağası (?) in Haramidere. toman landscape’. Troughout investi- (Figure 6, 7 and 8). gations and studies in these centers as Of course, there will not only be con- well as in the documents and drawings sidered the artifacts lef in the territory, lef by many travelers, it is possible to re-construct and re-shape the enormous heritage lef by Sinan, not only in terms of specifc and unique monuments but also in a wide range. A heritage that needs to be preserved and maintained under protection – where it is still possible – and to be included in a cultural ‘milieu’ that belongs to our contemporary world. It seems even su- perfuous to argue that this ‘Ottoman landscape’ should be revitalized for the memory of its historical values and for Figure 6. Sinan bridge in Alpullu (Photo@ its future, inside a program of sustain- Luca Orlandi). able cultural landscape. Te road scheme visualized in Fig- ure 9 synthesizes the route network in the Ottoman times departing from Istanbul towards the West, showing the main urban centers and the places in which Sinan designed his works; three main branches are visible in this route system: the lef road, (or Sol kol) connecting to Greece and Italy, the an- Figure 7. Sokollu Mehmet Pasha bridge in cient Via Egnatia; the Imperial Road, Lüleburgaz (Photo@Luca Orlandi). connecting Istanbul and Edirne to the Balkans and the center of the Europe- an states and the right road, towards Crimea, Russia and the Black Sea regions. Sinan was appointed by Sultan Su- leiman as Chief of the Imperial Archi- tects, and during his long life served other sultans, like Selim the Second and Murat the Tird or other important dignitaries of the court, like vi- ziers, sultan’s wives or mothers, princes and princesses and several others. For many of them he designed buildings in these lands, including complexes, baths, fountains and bridges. In these maps the sites in which Sinan, under the patronage of those mentioned rulers, worked, both as architect / engineer and as responsible in chief Figure 8. Suleiman Han bridge in for the public works, are showing the Büyükçekmece (Photo@Luca Orlandi). re-designed territories of Trace, a new

In search of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’s works in Trace as expression of tangible heritage 64

Figure 10. Sokollu Mehmet Pasha and the bridge in and the bridge in the townscape of Lüleburgaz (Klusáková, 2002, 72-73).

Figure 9. Te road network of Trace with the main three branches and the Sinan’s works sites (marked as white spot). landscape, in which Sinan’s quality to understand the place can be appreciat- ed. It seems that a ‘site planner’, in the case of Sinan, is a more suitable defni- Figure 11. Te Semiz Ali Pasha complex tion for him than city planner, a term in the townscape of Babaeski (Klusáková, indubitably too modern for those days. 2002, 70-71). Prof. Zeynep Ahunbay frst set the idea Semiz Ali Pasha complex in Babaeski of Sinan’s role in this manner, to defne (Figure 11). Tese original sketches, precisely his contribution at urban and preserved inside the Leiden library in territorial scale. Netherland, were ‘unearthed’ by Pro- Following the traces of Sinan’s ar- fessor Lud’a Klusáková, who analyzed tifacts ‘on paper’ lef in travelogues, them in a very stimulating study on the some travelers who came across Sinan’s Western/Christian view of the Otto- buildings in the landscape of Trace man townscape (Klusáková, 2002). have been selected, starting from the All these sort of information, both year 1550: Venetian ambassadors, like in shape of description or visual nar- Jacopo Soranzo or Marcantonio Bar- ratives, give a precise idea of how ar- baro, have lef descriptions of centers ticulate and complex the urban or like Lüleburgaz and Havsa, with de- territorial transformations in Trace tailed indications of the caravanserais were; moreover how the western trav- and other accommodation facilities; elers perceived the urban spaces and French travelers like Guillame Grelot were mesmerized by the architecture or Nicholas De Nicolay, the Dutch Am- designed by Sinan, as a ‘real’ Ottoman bassador Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq landscape, emphasized by landmarks and the English traveler Peter Mundy as minarets and domes to celebrate and visited Büyükçekmece area and Silivri, confrm the power and the hegemony commenting the bridges existing in of the Crescent in those lands. those areas and the well maintained More than the historical analysis of roads approaching the capital; Lady these complexes and buildings stud- Mary Wortley Montagu and Helmut ied in recent years by many scholars, von Moltke stayed at Edirne, admiring the aim of this paper is to seek for 4 the impressive mosque of Selim the the changes, which have succeeded in In general, it is 4 possible to fnd Second. these areas, highlighting the landscape many sources on Some visual material, such as the and the urban spaces in which it is pos- travel literature anonymous Leiden sketches represent sible to integrate these complexes to- in the Ottoman the minor centers from Belgrad to Is- day. Tis is an important issue that still Empire in the tanbul; in the presented sketches the needs to be evaluated well, because it following texts: Yerasimos, (1991); complex of Sokollu Mehmet Pasha and must be considered not only the mas- Klusáková, (2002); the bridge designed by Sinan, (Figure terpieces lef by Sinan in the territory and more recent, 10) connecting the town of Lüleburgaz of Trace, but also the territory itself, specifcally for to the other centers or staging posts on the surrounding environment in which Sinan’s works, see: the Imperial Road are very well depict- those buildings have existed in the past Necipoğlu, (2005); Orlandi, (2009). ed as well as the skyline defned by the and how the same buildings are seen ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • L. Orlandi 65 today, admired or even used, in order the aesthetic appreciation for a complex to survive. or a single masterpiece, but instead, in- Te ‘Ottoman landscape’ that can sisting in the urban and regional scale, be described in this context, cannot the interest goes to the impact of those be thought within the scope of an old buildings and sites designed by Sinan in fashioned romantic vision any lon- relation to the environment, in a large ger; a passionate and intense view of sense; therefore it can be taken under a beautiful nature or a city, a village, consideration the territorial policy of reminiscent of old postcards. Today Sinan’s patrons and how the architect the landscape is seen and perceived was able to satisfy their needs, fnd the (or it should be seen and perceived) proper solution according to each spe- as a refection of the human activities cifc site; or how the impressions of the across time, in a particular and defned visitors and travelers, the consideration area, and under certain conditions; that those buildings were representing this concept includes the civilization, for them, have been seen as a funda- its history and its architectural cul- mental architectural and environmen- ture as well. Because the landscape is tal heritage. From a critical point of in- not simply a territory, it is a continu- terest, all the descriptions of this kind um of overlapping physical vicissitudes should be viewed as a whole. As explic- and artifcial modifcation occurring it example, the recent works carried on inside a specifc territory, through the by the Çekül Foundation goes in this course of time. Following the signs of perspective and in particular the map Sinan can be useful in understanding prepared by them on Sinan’s works in the importance of urban and rural ar- Trace (Çekül Vakfı, 2007). Moreover, eas in Trace, through the construc- their project called “Sinan’a Saygı” (Re- tion of complexes, roads, bridges and spect to Sinan), is an important step to all other the infrastructures connected enlarge the debate on Sinan’s heritage to them. An urban/rural landscape - and to increase the awareness of it to- in this analysis - is a combination, or wards a more vast public. rather a continuous layer of a natural By considering the works of Sinan in environment together with the devel- Trace in a larger scale, added as part opment of human occupation, daily of an Ottoman heritage in a wide re- life, agriculture, farming, etc. and also gion of Turkey, they can provide some a peculiar place transformed with the links between several concepts; for contribution and the ‘artifacts’ de- example, it is possible to point out the signed by architects and town plan- connections between land, landscape ners. In this sense, the works of Sinan and ‘cultural heritage’ through other in Trace, under the patronage of Su- concepts such as identity and memory. leiman the Magnifcent or Selim the What it can defne as a ‘cultural land- Second, and other important clients scape’ depends on the values, both cul- like the Gran Vizier Sokollu Mehmet tural and historical, and on the identity Pasha or Rüstem Pasha, are incredibly that is refected in the territory itself. surprising and impressing; they give a Tese values should be recognized by clue to understand not only the specif- the local people, the real ‘user’ and ac- ic architecture of that time, but all the quired by the local municipalities and development program in these areas administrative authorities in order to during the middle Sixteenth Century, defne this heritage as a beneft for the in other words, the entire physical-po- collectivity and not only seen as a prof- litical system - the agenda - in which it opportunity, as well as an important they were built. asset for themselves and for the main- In a way, this work is created not to tenance and sustainability of the envi- interest the study of specifc buildings ronment. or individual works made by Sinan, What is defned as a ‘genius loci’, the and many scholars did it in an excellent pure spirit of the place, in a particular way before, but it moves to the efects, site is somehow transformed by the ar- the sum of these architectural experi- chitects, (in our case Sinan) who frst ences in a wider context. Tere is not recognizes and interprets the signs a specifc interest for the ‘monuments’, and the traces of the specifc territory,

In search of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’s works in Trace as expression of tangible heritage 66 and consciously utilized all this infor- part of the Balkans. Te Ottoman ar- mation in his projects, turning and chitecture marks indelibly the territo- changing it, to obtain the result of a ry, the local historical memories, their new space, architectural or urban, ac- presence and the common matrix of cording to his intents. Today, all these cultural identity: crossing cities like Sa- beautiful and magnifcent expressions rajevo, Tessalonica, Skopje, or coun- of architecture can be seen and ana- tries like Albania, Bosnia Herzegovi- lyzed by collocating them in a sort of na or Kosovo or Macedonia, it is still ‘belonging’ to a cultural landscape. It possible to observe artifacts, along the can commonly refer to this place, or provincial roads or in the minor urban space as a ‘milieu’, a site enriched by areas, testifying the Ottoman achieve- history, culture and other values, dia- ment and preserving the memory and metrically opposed to the concept of the history of a place. ‘atopy’, where every place is equal to In those lands, characterized by another, indistinctly, without any spe- increasingly strong multiethnic and cifc characteristic. Of course, the en- components from multiple faiths, the tire process cannot be ascribed to the traces lef by the Ottoman presence in work of a single man – even if he was almost six hundred years of domina- a genius in his practice, as Sinan surely tion, in form of towns, infrastructure, was - but to a system in which the man or architectural structures as mosques occupies an important role in society, or mescits, public baths, caravanserais, integrated and under the direction of covered bazaars, bridges and fortifca- wise patrons and where he has the pos- tions stratifed in time, are unequivo- sibility to make important changes and cally a bond, strong and direct, with modifcations, as the analyzed cases in both the general European history Trace have clearly shown. and the important role played by the Even if it is not an easy subject, what Ottoman and Turkish civilizations in it is possible to emphasize is that the those border countries, not so disjoint traces of the past and their presence, or as far away as it is usually tend to still visible in the present time, should think. Considering Sinan’s examples consciously pass through conservation summarily presented in the previous and restoration, not to create ‘new’ but pages - a true testament in stone of a already ‘dead’ monuments, or to make marvelous age – the hope is that such out of them urban space as ‘monumen- landscape can inspire and convey new tal areas’. With awareness of the present energy to the people, stimulating a new situation and under very limited con- interest in history and common rooted ditions, the restoration should bring identities. the architectural works of the past to life again, integrating and innovat- References ing them in the contemporary society Bayram, S. (ed.), (1988). Mimarbası and in a more sophisticated concept Koca Sinan. Yaşadığı çağ ve eserleri, of cultural heritage. In brief, many of [Head Architect Great Sinan, His Age the ideas presented here related to a and His Works] I-II, T.C. Başbakanlık defnition of what can be considered Vakıfar Genel Müdürlüğü, Istanbul. worth in terms of ‘Ottoman landscape’, Beldiceanu, N. (1980). Le timar dans should not concretized only in a sort l’État ottoman (début XIVe – début XVIe of open air museum on Sinan’s works siècle), Otto Harrassowitz,Wiesbaden. in Trace, even if desirable, but should Bombaci, A., Shaw, S. J. (1981). L’im- instead drive an awareness on the real pero ottomano, in Storia universale dei wealth given by a heritage so extensive popoli e della civiltà, VI/2, UTET, To- and unique, as the one we can fnd in rino. that region. Bozkurt, O. (1952). Koca Sinan’ın With this specifc intention, Sinan’s köprüleri: XVI. asır Osmankı medeni- architectural experience in Trace can yeti içinde Sinan, köprülerin mimari be helpful for the understanding of a bakımdan tetkiki, siluet ve abide large portion of Ottoman belongings kıymetleri, [Bridges of Sinan the Great: disseminated in a very extensive region Sinan within 16th century Ottoman that can include all countries that are civilization, architectural evaluation,

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • L. Orlandi 67 silhouette and monumental impor- and the Balkans under the Ottoman tance of bridges] ITU, Architecture Empire. Essays on Economy and Society, Faculty, Istanbul. Indiana University Turkish Studies/ Burelli, A. R. (1989). La Moschea di Turkish Ministry of Culture, Bloom- Sinan, Cluva Editrice, Venezia. ington U.S.A. Cerasi, M. (1988). La Città del Le- İnalcik, H. (1997a). An Economic vante. Civiltà urbana e architettura and Social History of the Ottoman Em- sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII-XIX, pire. I, 1300-1600, Cambridge Univer- Jaca Book, Milano. sity Press, Cambridge. Cezar, M. (1983). Typical Commer- İnalcik, H. (1997b). Te Ottoman cial Building of the Ottoman Classical Empire. Te Classical Age 1300-1600, Period and the Ottoman Construction Phoenix, London. System, Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Jireček, C. J. (1877). Die Heerstrasse Publications, Istanbul. von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel und Çulpan, C. (1975). Türk Taş die Balkanpässe, Tempst, Prague. Köprüleri, [Turkish Stone Bridges] An- Klusáková, L. (2002). Te Road to kara. Constantinople. Sixteenth-Century Ot- Egli, E. (1954). Sinan der Baumeister toman Towns through Christian Eyes, Osmanischer Glanzzeit, Verlag für Ar- ISV, Prague. kitektur A. G., Erlenbach, Zürich. Kuban, D. (1997). Sinan’s Art and Se- Egli, H. (1997). Sinan, an Interpreta- limiye, Te Economic and Social His- tion, Ege, Istanbul. tory Foundation, Istanbul. Eldem, E., Gofman, D., Masters, Küçükkaya, G. (1990). Mimar Sinan B. (1999). Te Ottoman City between Dönemi İstanbul-Belgrad arası menzil East and West. Aleppo, Izmir and Istan- yapıları hakkında bir deneme, [Eval- bul, Cambridge University Press, New uation on Architect Sinan Era menzil York-Cambridge. buildings between Istanbul and Bel- Goodwin, G. (1992). Sinan: Otto- grade] in Vakıfar Dergisi, XXI, 183- man Architecture and its Value Today, 254. Saqi Books, London. Kuran, A. (1986). Mimar Sinan, [Ar- Günay, R. (1998). Sinan - Te Archi- chitect Sinan] Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları, tect and his Works, YEM, Istanbul. Istanbul. Heywood, C. J. (1976-1977). Some Mandel, G. (1988). I Caravanserragli Turkish archival sources for the history turchi, Lucchetti, Bergamo. of the Menzilhane network in Rumeli Mantran, R. (ed.), (1999). Storia during the Eighteenth Century. (Notes dell’Impero Ottomano, Ed. Argo, Lecce. and documents on the Ottoman Ulak, Çekül Vakfı, (2007). Mimar Sinan I), in Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi. Eserleri I – II, [Archtitect Sinan Works Beşeri Bilimler - Humanities, 4-5, Is- I-II] Trakya Gezi Haritası, Çekül Vakfı, tanbul, 39-55. Istanbul. Heywood, C. J. (1980). Te Ottoman Necipoğlu, G. (2005). Te Age of Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rume- Sinan. Architectural Culture in the Ot- li in the Eighteenth Century, in Türki- toman Empire, Reaktion Books, Lon- ye’nin Sosyal ve Economik Tarihi (1071- don. 1920) / Social and Economic History of Orlandi, L. (2005). Te Urban and Turkey (1071-1920). Paper presented Territorial Conception of Architect to the “First International Congress Sinan during the Development of the of the Social and Economic History of Classical Ottoman Architecture in the Turkey. Hacettepe University, Ankara 16th Century (Case-Study: Ottoman July 11-13, 1977, Ankara, Meteksan, Trace), PhD dissertation, Politecnico 179-186. di Torino, Scuola di Dottorato (in Ital- Imber, C. (2002). Te Ottoman Em- ian language). pire 1300-1650, Palgrave Macmillan, Orlandi, L. (2009). Trakya peyzajın- New York. da Sinan’ın izlerini takıp etmek, [Fol- İnalcik, H., Renda, G., (eds.), (2002). lowing Traces of Sinan in Trachian Ottoman Civilization, I-II, Ministry of Landscape]. In Sinan Simgesi, Burak Culture, Ankara. Asiliskender (ed.), M.O. Kayseri Subesi İnalcik, H. (1993). Te Middle East Yayınları, Kayseri, 89-102.

In search of an ‘Ottoman Landscape’: Sinan’s works in Trace as expression of tangible heritage 68

Parisi, N. (2008). Sinan: progetto e Fribourg. costruzione dello spazio cupolato Otto- Tokay, H. Z. (1994). Osmanlı külli- mano, POLIBA, Bari. yelerinin temel özellikleri ve günümüz Petruccioli, A. (ed.), (1990). Mimar ortamında değerlendirilmeleri, [Gen- Sinan. Te Urban Vision. Proceedings of eral Characteristics of Ottoman Com- the International Symposium organized plexes and Teir Contemporary Eval- by the Islamic Environmental Design uation] PhD, Mimar Sinan University, Research Centre and by the Diparti- Istanbul. mento di Architettura e Analisi della Yerasimos, S. (1991). Les Voyageurs Città, Università di Roma, ‘La Sapien- dans l’Empire Ottoman (XIVe – XVIe za’, and held at Genzano di Roma, June siècles). Bibliographie, itinéraires et in- 1988, special issue of «Environmental ventaire des lieux habités, Publications Design», Journal of the Islamic Envi- de la Société Turque d’Histoire, Anka- ronmental Design Research Centre, ra. Carucci Editore, Roma. Zachariadou, E. A. (ed.), (1996). Pitcher, D. E. (1972). A Historical Te Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule Geography of the Ottoman Empire, 1380-1699, Crete University Press – Brill, Leiden. Foundation for Research & Technolo- Sai, Mustafa Çelebi, (2002). Book of gy, Rethymnon. (Turkish transl., 1999, Buildings. Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan and Tez- Sol Kol. Osmanlı Egemenliğinde Via kiretü’l-Ebniye. Memoirs of Sinan the Egnatia (1380-1699), Tarih Vakfı Yurt Architect, Koç Bank A.Ş., Istanbul. Yayınları, Istanbul. Shaw, S. J. (1995). History of the Zachariadou, E. A. (2002). Te Via Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Egnatia in the Ottoman period: the I-II, Cambridge University Press, New menzilhanes of the Sol Kol in the late York. 17th/early 18th Century, in Heywood, Sözen, M. (1988). Sinan. Architect of C., eds, Writing Ottoman History. Doc- Ages, Istanbul, Te 400th Commemo- uments and Interpretations, Ashgate, rative Year of Mimar Sinan – Turkish Aldershot (GB) / Burlington (Vermont Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Is- U.S.A.), 129-144. tanbul. Zangheri, L. (ed.), (1992). Mimar Stierlin, H. (1985). Soliman et l’ar- Sinan. Architettura tra Oriente e Occi- chitecture ottomane, Ofce du Livre, dente, Alinea, Firenze.

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • L. Orlandi