Architecture of the Ottoman Empire
Ottoman architecture
is an architectural style or tradition that developed under the
Ottoman Empire
over a long period,
[1]
undergoing some significant changes during its history.
[2]
It first emerged in northwestern
Anatolia
in the late 13th century
[3]
and developed from earlier
Seljuk Turkish architecture
, with influences from
Byzantine
and
Iranian
architecture along with other architectural traditions in the
Middle East
.
[4]
Early Ottoman architecture
experimented with multiple building types over the course of the 13th to 15th centuries, progressively evolving into the
classical Ottoman style
of the 16th and 17th centuries. This style was a mixture of native Turkish tradition and influences from the
Hagia Sophia
, resulting in monumental mosque buildings focused around a high central
dome
with a varying number of
semi-domes
.
[5]
[6]
[7]
The most important architect of the classical period is
Mimar Sinan
, whose major works include the
?ehzade Mosque
,
Suleymaniye Mosque
, and
Selimiye Mosque
.
[7]
[8]
The second half of the 16th century also saw the apogee of certain decorative arts, most notably in the use of
Iznik tiles
.
Beginning in the 18th century, Ottoman architecture was opened to external influences, particularly
Baroque architecture
in
Western Europe
. Changes appeared during the
style of the Tulip Period
, followed by the emergence of the
Ottoman Baroque style
in the 1740s.
[11]
The
Nuruosmaniye Mosque
is one of the most important examples of this period.
The
architecture of the 19th century
saw more influences imported from Western Europe, brought in by architects such as those from the
Balyan family
.
Empire style
and
Neoclassical
motifs were introduced and a trend towards
eclecticism
was evident in many types of buildings, such as the
Dolmabace Palace
.
The last decades of the Ottoman Empire saw the development of a new architectural style called neo-Ottoman or Ottoman revivalism, also known as the
First National Architectural Movement
, by architects such as
Mimar Kemaleddin
and
Vedat Tek
.
[16]
Ottoman dynastic patronage was concentrated in the historic capitals of
Bursa
,
Edirne
, and
Istanbul
(
Constantinople
), as well as in several other important administrative centers such as
Amasya
and
Manisa
. It was in these centers that most important developments in Ottoman architecture occurred and that the most monumental Ottoman architecture can be found.
Major religious monuments were typically architectural complexes, known as a
kulliye
, that had multiple components providing different services or amenities. In addition to a
mosque
, these could include a
madrasa
, a
hammam
, an
imaret
, a
sebil
, a market, a
caravanserai
, a
primary school
, or others.
Ottoman constructions were still abundant in Anatolia and in the
Balkans
(
Rumelia
), but in the more distant Middle Eastern and
North African
provinces older
Islamic architectural
styles continued to hold strong influence and were sometimes blended with Ottoman styles.
Early Ottoman period (14th to 15th centuries)
[
edit
]
Before 1453
[
edit
]
The first Ottomans were established in northwest Anatolia near the borders of the
Byzantine Empire
. Their position at this frontier encouraged influences from
Byzantine architecture
and other ancient remains, and there were examples of similar architectural experimentation by the other local dynasties of the region.
One of the early Ottoman stylistic distinctions that emerged was a tradition of designing more complete facades in front of mosques, especially in the form of a
portico
with arches and columns.
Another early distinction was the reliance on domes.
[22]
The first Ottoman structures were built in
So?ut
, the earliest Ottoman capital, and in nearby
Bilecik
, but they have not survived in their original form. They include a couple of small mosques and a mausoleum built in
Ertu?rul
's time (late 13th century).
Bursa
was captured in 1326 by the Ottoman leader
Orhan
. It served as the Ottoman capital until 1402, becoming a major center of patronage and construction.
[24]
Orhan also captured
?znik
in 1331, turning it into another early center of
Ottoman art
.
[25]
In this early period there were generally three types of mosques: the single-domed mosque, the T-plan mosque, and the multi-unit or multi-dome mosque.
[22]
The
Hacı Ozbek Mosque
(1333) in ?znik is the oldest Ottoman mosque with an inscription that documents its construction
and it is the oldest example of the Ottoman single-domed mosque, consisting of a square chamber covered by a dome.
[26]
Another early single-domed mosque is the
Green Mosque in ?znik
(1378?1391), which is the first Ottoman mosque for which the name of the architect (Hacı bin Musa) is known.
The main dome covers a square space and the transition between the round base of the dome and the square chamber below is achieved through a series of triangular carvings known as "Turkish triangles", a type of
pendentive
which was common in
Anatolian Seljuk
and early Ottoman architecture.
[29]
In 1334?1335, Orhan built a mosque in ?znik that no longer stands but has been excavated by archeologists. It is significant as the earliest known example of a type of building called a
zaviye
(a cognate of Arabic
zawiya
), "T-plan" mosque, or "Bursa-type" mosque.
This type of building is characterized by a central court, typically covered by a dome, with
iwans
(domed or vaulted halls that are open to the courtyard) on three sides, one of which is oriented towards the
qibla
(direction of prayer) and contains the
mihrab
(wall niche symbolizing the
qibla
). The front facade usually incorporated a portico along its entire width. The iwans on the side and the other various rooms attached to these buildings may have served to house
Sufi
students and traveling
dervishes
, since the Sufi brotherhoods were one of the main supporters of the early Ottomans.
Variations of this floor plan were the most common type of major religious structure sponsored by the early Ottoman elites. The "Bursa-type" label comes from the fact that multiple examples of this kind were built in and around Bursa, including the
Orhan Gazi Mosque
(1339), the
Hudavendigar (Murad I) Mosque
(1366?1385), the
Yildirim Bayezid I Mosque
(completed in 1395), and the
Green Mosque
built by
Mehmed I
(1412?1424).
The Green Mosque is notable for its extensive
tile
decoration in the
cuerda seca
technique. It is the first instance of lavish tile decoration in Ottoman architecture.
These mosques were all part of larger religious complexes (
kulliye
s) that included other structures offering services such as
madrasas
(Islamic colleges),
hammams
(public bathhouses), and
imarets
(charitable kitchens).
The most unusual mosque of this period is the multi-domed
congregational mosque
known as the
Grand Mosque of Bursa
or
Ulu Cami
. The mosque was commissioned by
Bayezid I
after the
Battle of Nicopolis
in 1396 and finished in 1399?1400. It consists of a large
hypostyle hall
divided into twenty equal
bays
in a rectangular four-by-five grid, each covered by a dome supported by stone piers.
After Bayezid I was defeated at the
Battle of Ankara
in 1402, the Ottoman capital was moved to
Edirne
in
Thrace
. The last major multi-dome mosque built by the Ottomans (with some exceptions), is the
Old Mosque
(
Eski Cami
) in Edirne, built between 1403 and 1414.
In later periods, the multi-dome building type was adapted for use in non-religious buildings instead,
such as
bedestens
(market halls).
[37]
[38]
[39]
The most important architectural development from the reign of
Murad II
(
r.
1421?1451
) is the
Uc ?erefeli Mosque
, built from 1437 to 1447.
It has a very different design from earlier mosques, with a nearly square floor plan divided between a rectangular courtyard and a rectangular prayer hall. The courtyard has a central fountain and is surrounded by a portico of arches and domes, with a decorated central portal leading into the courtyard from the outside and another one leading from the courtyard into the prayer hall. The prayer hall is centered around a huge dome which covers most of the middle part of the hall, while the sides of the hall are covered by pairs of smaller domes. The central dome is larger than any other Ottoman dome built before this.
The mosque has a total of four
minarets
, arranged around the four corners of the courtyard. Its southwestern minaret was the tallest Ottoman minaret built up to that time and features three balconies (from which the mosque's name derives).
This new design was a culmination of previous architectural experimentation and foreshadowed the features of later Ottoman mosque architecture.
After 1453
[
edit
]
After he
conquered Constantinople
(present-day Istanbul) in 1453, one of Sultan
Mehmed II
's first constructions in the city was a palace, known as the
Old Palace
(
Eski Saray
).
In 1459, he began construction of a second palace known as the New Palace (
Yeni Saray
) and later as the
Topkapı Palace
("Cannon-Gate Palace").
It was mostly laid out between 1459 and 1465,
but it has since been repeatedly modified over subsequent centuries by different rulers and today it is an accumulation of different styles and periods. The palace consists of multiple courtyards, enclosures, and pavilions spread across a precinct delimited by an outer wall. Its seemingly irregular layout was a reflection of a clear hierarchical organization of functions and private residences, with the innermost areas reserved for the privacy of the sultan and his innermost circle.
Mehmed II's largest contribution to religious architecture was the
Fatih Mosque
complex in Istanbul, built from 1463 to 1470. It was part of a very large
kulliye
which also included a
tabhane
(guesthouse for travelers), an imaret, a
daru??ifa
(hospital), a
caravanserai
(hostel for traveling merchants), a
mektep
(primary school), a library, a hammam, shops, a cemetery with the founder's mausoleum, and eight madrasas along with their annexes.
The buildings largely ignored any existing topography and were arranged in a strongly symmetrical layout on a vast square terrace with the monumental mosque at its center.
The original mosque was mostly destroyed by an
earthquake in 1766
. Its design has been reconstructed by scholars using historical sources.
It likely reflected the combination of the Byzantine church tradition (especially the
Hagia Sophia
) with the Ottoman tradition that had evolved since the early imperial mosques of Bursa and Edirne.
Drawing on the ideas established by the earlier Uc ?erefeli Mosque, it comprised a rectangular courtyard leading to a domed prayer hall. The latter was covered by a large central dome with a semi-dome behind it (on the
qibla
side), flanked by a row of three smaller domes on either side.
After Mehmed II, the reign of
Bayezid II
(1481?1512) is again marked by extensive architectural patronage, of which the two most outstanding and influential examples are the
Bayezid II Complex
in Edirne and the
Bayezid II Mosque
in Istanbul.
The Bayezid II Mosque in Istanbul, built between 1500 and 1505, again features a courtyard leading to a square prayer hall. However, its prayer hall makes use of two semi-domes aligned with the main central dome, while the side aisles are each covered by four smaller domes. Compared to earlier mosques, this results in a much more sophisticated "cascade of domes" effect for the building's exterior profile.
This design, with its deliberate arrangement of established Ottoman architectural elements into a strongly symmetrical plan, is another culmination of previous architectural exploration and represents the last step towards the classical Ottoman style.
Classical period (16th to 17th centuries)
[
edit
]
The start of the classical period is strongly associated with the works of the imperial architect
Mimar Sinan
.
[57]
[58]
During this period the bureaucracy of the Ottoman state, whose foundations were laid in Istanbul by Mehmet II, became increasingly elaborate and the profession of the architect became further institutionalized.
[7]
The long reign of
Suleiman the Magnificent
is also recognized as the apogee of Ottoman political and
cultural
development, with extensive patronage in art and architecture by the sultan, his family, and his high-ranking officials.
[7]
In this period Ottoman architecture, especially under the work and influence of Sinan, saw a new unification and harmonization of the various architectural elements and influences that Ottoman architecture had previously absorbed but which had not yet been harmonized into a collective whole.
[57]
Ottoman architecture used a limited set of general forms ? such as domes, semi-domes, and arcaded porticos ? which were repeated in every structure and could be combined in a limited number of ways.
The ingenuity of successful architects such as Sinan lay in the careful and calculated attempts to solve problems of space, proportion, and harmony.
This period is also notable for the development of
Iznik tile
decoration in Ottoman monuments, with the artistic peak of this medium beginning in the second half of the 16th century.
The era of Sinan
[
edit
]
The master architect of the classical period, Mimar Sinan, served as the chief court architect (
mimarba?i
) for some 50 years from 1538 until his death in 1588.
Sinan credited himself with the design of over 300 buildings,
though another estimate of his works puts it at nearly 500.
[63]
He is credited with designing buildings as far as
Buda
(present-day
Budapest
) and
Mecca
.
He was probably not present to directly supervise projects far from the capital, so in these cases his designs were most likely executed by his assistants or by local architects.
Sinan's first major imperial commission was the
?ehzade Mosque
complex, which Suleiman dedicated to
?ehzade Mehmed
, his son who died in 1543.
The complex was built between 1545 and 1548.
The mosque has a rectangular floor plan divided into two equal squares, with one square occupied by the courtyard and the other occupied by the prayer hall.
The prayer hall consists of a central dome surrounded by semi-domes on four sides, with smaller domes occupying the corners. Smaller semi-domes also fill the space between the corner domes and the main semi-domes. This design represents the culmination of the previous domed and semi-domed buildings in Ottoman architecture, bringing complete symmetry to the dome layout.
Sinan's early innovations are also evident in the way he organized the structural supports of the dome. Instead of having the dome rest on thick walls all around it (as was previously common), he concentrated the load-bearing supports into a limited number of buttresses along the outer walls of the mosque and in four pillars inside the mosque itself at the corners of the dome. This allowed for the walls in between the buttresses to be thinner, which in turn allowed for more windows to bring in more light.
Sinan also moved the outer walls inward, near the inner edge of the buttresses, so that the latter were less visible inside the mosque.
On the outside, he added domed porticos along the lateral facades of the building which further obscured the buttresses and gave the exterior a greater sense of monumentality.
The basic design of the ?ehzade Mosque, with its symmetrical dome and four semi-dome layout, proved popular with later architects and was repeated in classical Ottoman mosques after Sinan (e.g. the
Sultan Ahmed I Mosque
, the
New Mosque
at
Eminonu
, and the 18th-century reconstruction of the Fatih Mosque).
Despite this legacy and the symmetry of its design, Sinan considered the Sehzade Mosque his "apprentice" work and was not satisfied with it.
During the rest of his career he did not repeat its layout in any of his other works. He instead experimented with other designs that seemed to aim for a completely unified interior space and for ways to emphasize the visitor's perception of the main dome upon entering a mosque. One of the results of this logic was that any space that did not belong to the central domed space was reduced to a minimum, subordinate role, if not altogether absent.
The
Suleymaniye Mosque
(1550?1557) in Istanbul is one of the most important monuments of the classical Ottoman period
In 1550, Sinan began construction for the
Suleymaniye complex
, a monumental religious and charitable complex dedicated to Suleiman. Construction finished in 1557. Following the example of the earlier Fatih complex, it consists of many buildings arranged around the main mosque in the center, on a planned site occupying the summit of a hill in Istanbul.
The Suleymaniye Mosque complex is one of the most important symbols of Ottoman architecture and is often considered by scholars to be the most magnificent mosque in Istanbul.
[22]
[81]
The mosque itself has a form similar to that of the earlier Bayezid II Mosque: a central dome preceded and followed by semi-domes, with smaller domes covering the sides.
In particular, the building replicates the central dome layout of the Hagia Sophia and this may be interpreted as a desire by Suleiman to emulate the structure of the Hagia Sophia, demonstrating how this ancient monument continued to hold tremendous symbolic power in Ottoman culture.
Nonetheless, Sinan employed innovations similar to those he used previously in the ?ehzade Mosque: he concentrated the load-bearing supports into a limited number of columns and pillars, which allowed for more windows in the walls and minimized the physical separations within the interior of the prayer hall.
The exterior facades of the mosque are characterized by ground-level porticos, wide arches in which sets of windows are framed, and domes and semi-domes that progressively culminate upwards ? in a roughly
pyramidal
fashion ? to the large central dome.
After designing the Suleymaniye complex, Sinan appears to have focused on experimenting with the single-domed space.
In the 1550s and 1560s, he experimented with an "octagonal baldaquin" design for the main dome, in which the dome rests on an octagonal
drum
supported by a system of eight pillars or buttresses. An example of this is the
Rustem Pasha Mosque
(1561) in Istanbul.
This mosque is also famous for its wide array of Iznik tiles covering the walls of its exterior portico and its interior, unprecedented in Ottoman architecture,
contrasting with the usually restrained decoration Sinan employed in other buildings.
The
Selimiye Mosque
in Edirne (1568?1574), dominated by a single huge dome, was considered by Sinan to be his crowning masterpiece.
Sinan's crowning masterpiece is the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, which was begun in 1568 and completed in 1574 (or possibly 1575).
Its prayer hall is notable for being completely dominated by a single massive dome, whose view is unimpeded by the structural elements seen in other large domed mosques before this.
This design is the culmination of Sinan's spatial experiments, making use of the octagonal baldaquin as the most effective method of integrating the round dome with the rectangular hall below by minimizing the space occupied by the supporting elements of the dome.
The dome is supported on eight massive pillars which are partly freestanding but closely integrated with the outer walls. Additional outer buttresses are concealed in the walls of the mosque, allowing the walls in between to be pierced with a large number of windows.
Sinan's biographies praise the dome for its size and height, which is approximately the same diameter as the Hagia Sophia's main dome and slightly higher; the first time that this had been achieved in Ottoman architecture.
After Sinan
[
edit
]
After Sinan, the classical style became less creative and more repetitive by comparison with earlier periods.
Davud Agha
succeeded Sinan as chief architect. Among his most notable works, all in Istanbul, are the Cerrahpa?a Mosque (1593), the Koca Sinan Pasha Complex on
Divanyolu
(1593), the Gazanfer A?a Medrese complex (1596), and the Tomb of Murad III (completed in 1599).
Some scholars argue that the Nı?ancı Mehmed Pasha Mosque (1584?1589), whose architect is unknown, should be attributed to him.
Its design is considered highly accomplished and it may be one of the first Ottoman mosques to be fronted by a garden courtyard.
Davud Agha was one of the few architects of this period to display great potential and to create designs that went beyond Sinan's designs, but unfortunately he died of the plague right before the end of the 16th century.
The Sultan Ahmed I Mosque was begun in 1609 and completed in 1617.
It was designed by Sinan's apprentice, Mehmed Agha.
The mosque's size, location, and decoration suggest it was intended to be a rival to the nearby Hagia Sophia.
Its design essentially repeats that of the ?ehzade Mosque.
On the outside, Mehmed Agha opted to achieve a "softer" profile with the cascade of domes and the various curving elements, differing from the more dramatic juxtaposition of domes and vertical elements seen in earlier classical mosques by Sinan.
It is also the only Ottoman mosque to have as many as six minarets.
[81]
On the inside, the mosque's lower walls are lavishly decorated with thousands of predominantly blue Iznik tiles; along with the painted decoration on the rest of the walls, this has given the mosque its popular name, the Blue Mosque.
After the Sultan Ahmed I Mosque, no further great imperial mosques dedicated to a sultan were built in Istanbul until the mid-18th century. Mosques continued to be built and dedicated to other dynastic family members, but the tradition of sultans building their own monumental mosques lapsed.
Some of the best examples of early 17th-century Ottoman architecture are the Revan Kiosk (1635) and Baghdad Kiosk (1639) in Topkapı Palace, built by
Murad IV
to commemorate his victories against the
Safavids
.
Both are small pavilions raised on platforms overlooking the palace gardens. Both are harmoniously decorated on the inside and outside with predominantly blue and white tiles and richly-inlaid window shutters.
Tulip Period (early 18th century)
[
edit
]
The historical period known as the
Tulip Period
or Tulip Era is considered to have begun in 1718, during
Ahmed III
's reign (
r.
1703?1730
), and lasted until the
Patrona Halil
revolts of 1730, when Ahmed III was overthrown. These years of peace inaugurated a new era of growing cross-cultural exchange between the Ottoman Empire and Western Europe.
From the 18th century onward, European influences were introduced into Ottoman architecture as the Ottoman Empire itself became more open to outside influences. The term "Baroque" is sometimes applied more widely to Ottoman art and architecture across the 18th century including the Tulip Period.
[81]
In more specific terms, however, the period after the 17th century is marked by several different styles.
Unver Rustem states that constructions from the first years of Ahmed III's reign (after 1703) demonstrate that the new "Tulip Period" style was already in existence by then.
The period saw significant influence from the French
Rococo
style (part of the wider
Baroque style
) that emerged around this time under the reign of
Louis XV
.
In 1720, an Ottoman embassy led by
Yirmisekiz Celebi Mehmed Efendi
was sent to
Paris
and when it returned in 1721 it brought back reports and illustrations of the
French Baroque style
which made a strong impression in the sultan's court.
[81]
In addition to European influences, the decoration of the Tulip Period was also influenced by
Safavid art
and architecture to the east.
One of the most important creations of the Tulip Period was the
Sadabad Palace
, a new summer palace designed and built by Damat Ibrahim Pasha in 1722?1723 for Ahmed III.
It was located at
Ka?ıthane
, a rural area on the outskirts of the city with small rivers that flow into the
Golden Horn
inlet. The palace grounds included a long marble-lined canal, the
Cedval-i Sim
, around which were gardens, pavilions, and palace apartments in a landscaped setting. This overall design probably emulated French pleasure palaces as a result of Yirmisekiz's reports about Paris and
Versailles
.
The regular inhabitants of Istanbul also used the surrounding area as a recreational ground for excursions and picnics.
This was a new practice in Ottoman culture that brought the public within close proximity of the ruler's abode for the first time.
The culmination of the Tulip Period style is represented by a series of monumental stand-alone fountains that were mostly built between 1728 and 1732.
Water took on an enlarged role in architecture and the urban landscape of Istanbul during the Tulip Period. In the first half of the 18th century Istanbul's water supply infrastructure, including the aqueducts in Belgrade Forest, were renovated and expanded. In 1732 an important water distribution structure, the
taksim
, was first built on what is now
Taksim Square
.
The new fountains were unprecedented in Ottoman architecture. Previously, fountains and sebils only existed as minor elements of larger charitable complexes or as
shadirvan
s inside mosque courtyards. The
maidan
fountain, or a stand-alone fountain at the center of a
city square
, was introduced for the first time in this period.
The first and most remarkable of these is the
Ahmed III Fountain
built in 1728 next to the Hagia Sophia and in front of the outer gate of Topkapı Palace.
The construction of stand-alone library structures was another new trend influenced by European ideas, as the Ottomans traditionally did not build libraries except as secondary elements attached to religious complexes. The earlier
Koprulu Library
, built in 1678 was the first of its kind, but other early examples date from the reign of Ahmed III during the Tulip Period.
The last major monument of the Tulip Period stage in Ottoman architecture is the
Hekimo?lu Ali Pasha Mosque
complex completed in 1734?1735 and sponsored by the
grand vizier of the same name
.
This mosque reflects an overall classical form but the flexible placement of the various components of the complex around a garden enclosure is more reflective of the new changes in tastes. For example, the main gate of the complex is topped by a library, a feature which would have been unusual in earlier periods. It also has a very ornate sebil positioned at the street corner, next to the founder's tomb. The interior of the mosque is light and decorated with tiles from the
Tekfursaray
kilns, which were of lesser quality than those of the earlier Iznik period. One group of tiles is painted with an illustration of the
Great Mosque of Mecca
, a decorative feature of which there were multiple examples in this period.
Baroque period (18th century to early 19th century)
[
edit
]
During the 1740s a new Ottoman or Turkish "Baroque" style emerged in its full expression and rapidly replaced the style of the Tulip Period.
This shift signaled the final end to the classical style.
The political and cultural conditions which led to the Ottoman Baroque trace their origins in part to the Tulip Period, when the Ottoman ruling class opened itself to
Western
influence.
After the Tulip Period, Ottoman architecture openly imitated European architecture, so that architectural and decorative trends in Europe were often mirrored in the Ottoman Empire at the same time or after a short delay.
Changes were especially evident in the ornamentation and details of new buildings rather than in their overall forms, though new building types were eventually introduced from European influences as well.
[81]
The term "Turkish Rococo", or simply "Rococo",
is also used to describe the Ottoman Baroque, or parts of it, due to the similarities and influences from the French Rococo style in particular, but this terminology varies from author to author.
The first structures to exhibit the new Baroque style are several fountains and sebils built by elite patrons in Istanbul in 1741?1742.
The most important monument heralding the new Ottoman Baroque style is the
Nuruosmaniye Mosque
complex, begun by Mahmud I in October 1748 and completed by his successor,
Osman III
(to whom it is dedicated), in December 1755.
Do?an Kuban
describes it as the "most important monumental construction after the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne", marking the integration of European culture into Ottoman architecture and the rejection of the classical Ottoman style.
It also marked the first time since the Sultan Ahmed I Mosque (early 17th century) that an Ottoman sultan built his own imperial mosque complex in Istanbul, thus inaugurating the return of this tradition.
The
Ayazma Mosque
in Uskudar was built between 1757?8 and 1760?1.
It is essentially a smaller version of the Nuruosmaniye Mosque, signaling the importance of the latter as a new model to emulate.
Although smaller, it is relatively tall for its proportions, enhancing its sense of height. This trend towards height was pursued in later mosques.
In Topkapı Palace, the Ottoman sultans and their family continued to build new rooms or remodel old ones throughout the 18th century, introducing Baroque and Rococo decoration in the process. Some examples include the Baths of the Harem section, probably renovated by Mahmud I around 1744,
As in the preceding centuries, other palaces were built around Istanbul by the sultan and his family. Previously, the traditional Ottoman palace configuration consisted of different buildings or pavilions arranged in a group, as was the case at Topkapı Palace, the
Edirne Palace
, and others.
However, at some time during the 18th century there was a transition to palaces consisting of a single block or single large building.
Beyond Istanbul, the greatest palaces were built by powerful local families, but they were often built in regional styles that did not follow the trends of the Ottoman capital.
The
Azm Palace
in Damascus, for example, was built around 1750 in a largely Damascene style.
[152]
In eastern Anatolia, near present-day
Do?ubayazıt
, the
Ishak Pasha Palace
is an exceptional and flamboyant piece of architecture that mixes various local traditions including Seljuk Turkish,
Armenian
, and
Georgian
. It was begun in the 17th century and generally completed by 1784.
[155]
The
Nusretiye Mosque
, Mahmud II's imperial mosque, was built between 1822 and 1826 at Tophane.
The mosque is the first major imperial work by Krikor Balyan.
It is sometimes described as belonging to the Empire style, but is considered by Godfrey Goodwin and Do?an Kuban as one of the last Baroque mosques,
while Unver Rustem describes the style as moving away from the Baroque and towards an Ottoman interpretation of
Neoclassicism
.
Goodwin also describes it as the last in a line of imperial mosques that started with the Nuruosmaniye.
Despite its relatively small size the mosque's tall proportions creates a sense of height, which may the culmination of a trend that began with the Ayazma Mosque.
19th-century and early 20th-century
[
edit
]
During the reign of
Mahmud II
(r. 1808?1839) the
Empire style
, a
Neoclassical
style which originated in France under
Napoleon
, was introduced into Ottoman architecture.
This marked a trend towards increasingly direct imitation of Western styles, particularly from France.
The
Tanzimat
reforms that began in 1839 under Abdulmecid I sought to modernize the Ottoman Empire with Western-style reforms. In the architectural realm, this resulted in the dominance of European architects and Ottoman architects with European training.
[163]
Among these, the
Balyans
, an
Ottoman Armenian
family, succeeded in dominating imperial architecture for much of the century. They were joined by European architects such as the
Fossati brothers
, William James Smith, and
Alexandre Vallaury
.
After the early 19th century, Ottoman architecture was characterized by an
eclectic architecture
which mixed or borrowed from multiple styles. The Balyans, for example, commonly combined Neoclassical or
Beaux-arts
architecture with highly eclectic decoration.
As more Europeans arrived in Istanbul, the neighbourhoods of
Galata
and
Beyo?lu
(or Pera) took on very European appearances.
[166]
A number of mosques built in the 19th century reflect these trends, such as the
Ortakoy Mosque
and the
Pertevniyal Valide Mosque
in Istanbul.
The Tanzimat reforms also granted Christians and Jews the right to freely build new centers of worship, which resulted in new constructions, renovations, and expansions of churches and synagogues. Most of these followed the same eclecticism that prevailed in the rest of Ottoman architecture of the 19th century.
Many palaces, residences, and leisure pavilions were built in the 19th century, most of them in the Bosphorus suburbs of Istanbul. The most significant is the
Dolmabahce Palace
, constructed for Sultan Abdulmecit between 1843 and 1856.
[173]
It replaced the Topkapı Palace as the official imperial residence of the sultan.
The palace consists mainly of a single building with monumental proportions, which represented a radical rejection of traditional Ottoman palace design.
The style of the palace is fundamentally Neoclassical but is characterized by a highly eclectic decoration that mixes Baroque motifs with other styles.
Various new types of monuments were also introduced to Ottoman architecture during this era. For example,
clock towers
rose to prominence over the 19th century.
[177]
The construction of railway stations was a feature of Ottoman modernisation reflecting the new infrastructure changes within the empire. The most famous example is the
Sirkeci Railway Station
, built in 1888?1890 as the terminus of the
Orient Express
. It was designed in an Orientalist style by
German
architect August Jasmund (also spelled "Jachmund").
In the Beyo?lu district of Istanbul, Parisian-style
shopping arcades
appeared in the 19th century. Some consisted of a small courtyard filled with shops and surrounded by buildings, while others were simply a passage or alley (
pasaj
in Turkish) lined with shops, sometimes covered by a glass roof.
Other commercial building types that appeared in the late 19th century included hotels and banks.
A local interpretation of
Orientalist
fashion steadily arose in the late 19th century, initially used by European architects such as Vallaury. This trend combined "neo-Ottoman" motifs with other motifs from wider Islamic architecture.
[182]
The eclecticism and European imports of the 19th century eventually led to the introduction of Art Nouveau, especially after the arrival of Raimondo D'Aronco in the late 19th century. D'Aronco came at the invitation of Sultan Abdulhamid II and served as chief court architect between 1896 and 1909.
Istanbul became a new center of Art Nouveau and a local flavour of the style developed.
The new style was most prevalent in the new apartment buildings being built in Istanbul at the time.
The final period of architecture in the Ottoman Empire, developed after 1900 and in particular put into effect after the
Young Turks
took power in 1908?1909, is what was then called the "National Architectural Renaissance" and which gave rise to the style since referred to as the
First national architectural movement
of Turkish architecture.
[188]
The approach in this period was an Ottoman Revival style, a reaction to influences in the previous 200 years that had come to be considered "foreign", such as Baroque and Neoclassical architecture, and was intended to promote Ottoman patriotism and self-identity.
[188]
This was an entirely new style of architecture, related to earlier Ottoman architecture in rather the same manner was other roughly contemporaneous
revivalist architectures
related to their stylistic inspirations.
[188]
New government-run institutions that trained architects and engineers, established in the late 19th century and further centralized under the
Young Turks
, became instrumental in disseminating this "national style".
[189]
Tile decoration
[
edit
]
Early Ottoman tilework
[
edit
]
Some of the earliest known tile decoration in Ottoman architecture is found in the
Green Mosque
in Iznik, whose minaret incorporates glazed tiles forming patterns in the brickwork (although the current tiles are modern restorations). This technique was inherited from the earlier Seljuk period.
Glazed tile decoration in the
cuerda seca
technique was used in other early Ottoman monuments, particularly in the
Green Mosque
and the associated
Green Tomb
in Bursa.
The tiles of the Green Mosque complex generally have a deep green ground mixed with combinations of blue, white, and yellow forming
arabesque
motifs. A large portion of the tiles are cut into hexagonal and triangular shapes that were then fitted together to form murals.
Some of the tiles are further enhanced with arabesque motifs applied in gilt gold glazing over these colours.
Inscriptions in the mosque record that the decoration was completed in 1424 by Nakka? Ali, a craftsman native to Bursa who had been transported to
Samarkand
by
Timur
after the Ottoman defeat at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. In Samarkand, he was exposed to
Timurid architecture
and decoration and brought this artistic experience back with him later.
[196]
Other inscriptions record the tilemakers as being "Masters of Tabriz", suggesting that craftsmen of Iranian origin were involved.
Tabriz
was historically a major center of ceramic art in the Islamic world, and its artists appear to have emigrated and worked in many regions from Central Asia to Egypt.
The artistic style of these tiles ? and of other Ottoman art ? was influenced by an "International Timurid" taste that emerged from the intense
artistic patronage of the Timurids
, who controlled a
large empire
across the region.
[196]
Do?an Kuban argues that the decoration of the Green Mosque complex was more generally a product of collaboration between craftsmen of different regions, as this was the practice in Anatolian Islamic art and architecture during the preceding centuries.
The same kind of tilework is found in the mihrab of the
Murad II Mosque
in Edirne, completed in 1435. However, this mosque also contains the first examples of a new technique and style of tiles with
underglaze
blue on a white background, with touches of turquoise. This technique is found on the tiles that cover the muqarnas hood of the mihrab and in the mural of hexagonal tiles along the lower walls of the prayer hall. The motifs on these tiles include
lotuses
and
camellia
-like flowers on spiral stems.
These
chinoiserie
-like motifs, along with the focus on blue and white colours, most likely reflect an influence from contemporary
Chinese porcelain
? although the evidence for Chinese porcelain reaching Edirne at this time is unclear.
Tilework panels with similar techniques and motifs are found in the courtyard of the Uc ?erefeli Mosque, another building commissioned by Murad II in Edirne, completed in 1437.
The evidence from this tilework in Bursa and Edirne indicates the existence of a group or a school of craftsmen, the "Masters of Tabriz", who worked for imperial workshops in the first half of the 15th century and were familiar with both
cuerda seca
and underglaze techniques.
As the Ottoman imperial court moved from Bursa to Edirne, they too moved with it. However, their work does not clearly appear anywhere after this period.
Later on, the Tiled Kiosk in Istanbul, completed in 1472 for Mehmed II's New Palace (
Topkapı Palace
), is notably decorated with Iranian-inspired
banna'i
tilework. The builders were likely of Iranian origin, as historical documents indicate the presence of tilecutters from
Khorasan
, but not much is known about them.
Another unique example of tile decoration in Istanbul around the same period is found on the Tomb of Mahmud Pasha, built in 1473 as part of the
Mahmud Pasha Mosque
complex. Its exterior is covered in a mosaic of turquoise and indigo tiles inset into the sandstone walls to form
geometric star patterns
. The work still reflects a traditional style of Anatolian or Persian tile decoration similar to older Timurid examples.
Another stage in Ottoman tiles is evident in the surviving tiles of the
Fatih Mosque
(1463?70) and in the
Selim I Mosque
(1520?22). In these mosques the windows are topped by
lunettes
filled with
cuerda seca
tiles with motifs in green, turquoise,
cobalt blue
, and yellow.
Chinese motifs such as dragons and clouds also appear for the first time on similar tiles in Selim I's tomb, built behind his mosque in 1523.
A more extravagant example of this type of tilework can be found inside the tomb of
?ehzade Mehmed
in the cemetery of the
?ehzade Mosque
(1548).
Further examples can be found in a few religious structures designed by Sinan in this period, such as the
Haseki Hurrem Complex
(1539).
The latest example of it is in the
Kara Ahmet Pasha Mosque
(1555), once again in the lunettes above the windows of the courtyard.
Many scholars traditionally attribute these Ottoman tiles to craftsmen that Selim I brought back from Tabriz after his victory at the
Battle of Chaldiran
.
[196]
Do?an Kuban argues that this assumption is unnecessary if one considers the artistic continuity between these tiles and earlier Ottoman tiles as well as the fact that the Ottoman state had always employed craftsmen from different parts of the Islamic world.
John Carswell, a professor of Islamic art, states that the tiles are the work of an independent imperial workshop based in Istanbul that worked from Iranian traditions.
Godfrey Goodwin suggests that the style of tiles does not correspond to either the old "Masters of Tabriz" school or to an Iranian workshop, and therefore may represent an early phase of tilework from Iznik; an "early Iznik" style.
An important case of Ottoman tile decoration outside the imperial capitals around this time was the refurbishment of the
Dome of the Rock
in
Jerusalem
ordered by Sultan Suleiman. During the refurbishment, the exterior of the building was covered in tilework which replaced the older
Umayyad
mosaic decoration.
Inscriptions in the tiles give the date 1545?46, but work probably continued until the end of Suleiman's reign (1566).
The name of one of the craftsmen is recorded as Abdallah of Tabriz. The tilework includes many different styles and techniques, including
cuerda seca
tiles, colourful underglaze tiles, and mosaic blue-and-white tilework. The tiles seem to have been fabricated locally rather than at centers like Iznik, despite the absence of a sophisticated ceramic production center in the region.
This project is also notable as one of the few cases of extensive tile decoration applied to the exterior of a building in Ottoman architecture. This major restoration work in Jerusalem may have also played a role in Ottoman patrons developing a taste for tiles, such as those made in Iznik (which was closer to the capital).
Classical Iznik tiles
[
edit
]
Tiles on the exterior of the Circumcision Room in
Topkapı Palace
(early 16th century, with tiles from later period in the lower middle)
Details of blue-and-white tiles (early 16th century) on the exterior of the Circumcision Room
The city of Iznik had been a center of pottery production under the Ottomans since the 15th century, but until the mid-16th century it was mainly concerned with producing pottery vessels.
There is little evidence of large-scale tile manufacture in Iznik before this time.
[196]
In the late 15th century, in the 1470s or 1480s, the Iznik industry had grown in prominence and patronage and began producing a new "blue-and-white"
fritware
which adapted and incorporated Chinese motifs in its decoration.
Some of these blue-and-white ceramics appear in tile form in the decoration in the
Hafsa Hatun Mosque
(1522) in Manisa and in the
Coban Mustafa Pasha
Mosque (1523) in
Gebze
.
The
Hadim Ibrahim Pasha Mosque
(1551) also contains panels of well-executed tiles featuring calligraphic and floral decoration in cobalt blue, white, olive green, turquoise, and pale manganese purple.
The most extraordinary tile panels from this period are a series of panels on the exterior of Circumcision Pavilion (
Sunnet Odası
) in Topkapı Palace. The tiles in this composition have been dated to various periods within the 16th century and some were probably moved here during a restoration of the pavilion in the first half of the 17th century. Nonetheless, at least some of the tiles are believed to date from the 1520s and feature large floral motifs in blue, white, and turquoise.
Both the Topkapı tiles and the mosque tiles from this early-16th-century period are traditionally attributed to Iznik, but they may have been produced in Istanbul itself in ceramic workshops located at
Tekfursaray
.
Even if they come from Tekfursaray, their style is related to the style of ceramics being made in Iznik around the same time.
This includes the
saz
style
: a motif in which a variety of flowers are attached to gracefully curving stems with serrated leaves.
This continued to reflect earlier influences of the "International Timurid" style, but it also demonstrates the development of an increasingly distinct Ottoman artistic style at this time.
Ceramic art from Iznik reached its apogee in the second half of the 16th century, particularly with the advent of the "tomato red" colour in its compositions.
At the same time, Iznik grew into its role as a major center of tile production rather than just dishware.
Rather than merely highlighting certain architectural features (e.g. windows) with tile panels, large-scale murals of tilework became more common.
For this purpose, square tiles were also now preferred over the hexagonal tiles of the older Iranian tradition.
This was around the same time that Mimar Sinan, chief court architect, was also reaching the pinnacle of his career. Iznik ceramics and classical Ottoman architecture thus reached their greatest heights of achievement around the same time, during the reign of Suleiman and his immediate successors.
Sinan generally used tile decoration in a fairly restrained manner and seems to have preferred focusing on the architecture as a whole rather than on overwhelming decoration.
For example, Sinan's most celebrated works, the
Suleymaniye Mosque
(1550?57) and the
Selimiye Mosque
(1568-1574), feature tile decoration restricted to certain areas.
Even the
Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque
(1568-1572), which is known for its extensive high-quality tile decoration, still concentrates and focuses this decoration onto the wall surrounding the mihrab instead of on the whole mosque interior.
The major exception to this is the
Rustem Pasha Mosque
(1561?62), whose interior and outer portico are extensively covered in Iznik tiles.
The mosque is even regarded as a "museum" of Iznik tiles from this period.
Judging by comparisons with Sinan's other works, the exceptional use of tilework in this mosque may have been due to a specific request by the wealthy patron,
Rustem Pasha
, rather than a voluntary decision by Sinan himself.
There is no evidence that Sinan was closely involved in the production of tiles and it's likely that he merely decided where tile decoration would be placed and made sure that the craftsmen were capable.
Do?an Kuban also argues that while the vivid tiles inside the mihrab of the Rustem Pasha Mosque could have symbolized an image of
Paradise
, tile decoration in Ottoman mosques did not generally have deeper symbolic meanings.
Moroever, unlike
Byzantine mosaics
, tiles were also not well-suited to curved surfaces and as a result they were not used to decorate domes, which were decorated with painted motifs instead.
The tilework in the Rustem Pasha Mosque also marks the beginning of the artistic peak of Iznik tile art from the 1560s onward.
Blue colours predominate, but the important "tomato red" colour began to make an appearance. The repertoire of motifs includes
tulips
,
hyacinths
,
carnations
,
roses
,
pomegranates
,
artichoke
leaves,
narcissus
, and Chinese "cloud" motifs.
Around 1560 the colour palette of Iznik tiles also shifted slightly. With the introduction of tomato red, which was perfected in the following years, some colours like turquoise and manganese purple stopped appearing, while a new shade of green also appeared. This shift is partly evident in the Rustem Pasha Mosque and especially in the extensive tilework in the tomb of Haseki Hurrem (1558) and the tomb of Suleiman (1566), both located behind the Suleymaniye Mosque.
The highest artistic form of Iznik tiles was achieved soon after this during the reign of
Selim II
, who succeeded his father Suleiman, and continued until the end of the century. Some of the most exceptional tilework examples from this period can be found in the
Sokullu Mehmed Pasha Mosque
, the
Piyale Pasha Mosque
(1574), the tomb of Selim II (1576), the small Takkeci ?brahim A?a Mosque (1592), the tomb of Murad III (1595), and in some parts of the Topkapı Palace.
The tilework panels in the Chamber of Murad III (1578) in Topkapı Palace and in the mihrab area of the
Atik Valide Mosque
(1583) in Uskudar also show a trend of using colours in more abstract ways, such as the adding of red spots on flower petals of different colours, which is a detail particular to Ottoman art.
As noted by Arthur Lane in his seminal study of Iznik tiles published in 1957, the effect of Iznik tilework, when successfully employed in Ottoman domed interiors, results in a feeling of lightness and harmony, where the intricate details of the tiles themselves do not overwhelm the onlooker.
Tile decoration in the provinces was typically of lesser quality to that found in the main imperial centers of patronage. However some wealthy local patrons probably imported tiles from Istanbul, which explains the high-quality tilework in some distant monuments such as the
Behram Pasha Mosque
(1572?73) in
Diyarbakir
.
- Iznik tilework in the second half of the 16th century
-
Tiles in the Tomb of
Roxelana
, Istanbul (1558)
-
Tiles in the mihrab of the Rustem Pasha Mosque, Istanbul (circa 1561)
-
Tiles in the outer portico of the Rustem Pasha Mosque, Istanbul (circa 1561)
-
TIles in the
Mausoleum of Suleiman
, Istanbul (1566)
-
Tile decoration in the
Sokullu Mehmed Pasha Mosque
, Istanbul (1572)
-
Detail of tiles in the Sokullu Mehmed Pasha Mosque, Istanbul (1572)
-
Tilework near the mihrab in the
Selimiye Mosque
, Edirne (circa 1574)
-
Detail of tiles in the Selimiye Mosque, Edirne (circa 1574)
-
Detail of tiles in the Selimiye Mosque, Edirne (circa 1574)
-
Tile panel at the entrance to the Tomb of
Selim II
in Istanbul (1576)
-
Tiles in the
Atik Valide Mosque
, Istanbul (1583)
In the early 17th century, some features of 16th-century Iznik tiles began to fade, such as the use of embossed tomato red. At the same time, some motifs became more rigidly geometric and stylized.
The enormous
Sultan Ahmed Mosque
(or "Blue Mosque"), begun in 1609 and inaugurated in 1617, contains the richest collection of tilework of any Ottoman mosque. According to official Ottoman documents it contained as many as 20,000 tiles.
The dominant colours are blue and green, while the motifs are typical of the 17th century: tulips, carnations,
cypresses
, roses,
vines
, flower vases, and Chinese cloud motifs.
The best tiles in the mosque, located on the back wall on the balcony level, were originally made for the Topkapı Palace in the late 16th century and were reused here.
The massive undertaking of decorating such a large building strained the tile industry in Iznik and some of the tilework is repetitive and inconsistent in its quality.
The much smaller
Cinili ("Tiled") Mosque
(1640) in Uskudar is also covered in tilework on the inside.
The most harmonious examples of tile decoration in 17th-century Ottoman architecture are the Yerevan Kiosk and Baghdad Kiosk in Topkapı Palace, built in 1635 and 1639, respectively.
Both their exterior and interior walls are covered in tiles. Some of the tiles are
cuerda seca
tiles of a much earlier period, reused from elsewhere, but most are blue-and-white tiles that imitate early 16th-century Iznik work.
While the craftsmen at Iznik were still capable of producing rich and colourful tiles throughout the 17th century, there was an overall decline in quality. This was a result of a decline in imperial commissions, as fewer major building projects were sponsored by ruling elites during this period.
The
Celali revolts
in the early 17th century also had a significant impact, as
Evliya Celebi
records that the number of tile workshops in Iznik during this time dropped from 900 to only 9.
Some of the production continued in the city of
Kutahya
instead of Iznik.
Kutahya, unlike Iznik, had not become solely reliant on imperial commissions and as a result it weathered the changes more successfully. Many of its artisans were Armenians who continued to produce tiles for churches and other buildings.
Tile manufacture declined further in the second half of the century.
Nonetheless, the interior of the
"New Mosque" or Yeni Cami
in the
Eminonu
neighbourhood, completed in 1663, is a late example of lavish Iznik tile decoration in an imperial mosque. The finest tiles in the complex are reserved for the sultan's private gallery and lounge (the
Hunkar Kasrı
).
By this period, blue and turquoise colours increasingly predominated, and many commissioned works limited their patterns to single tiles instead of creating larger patterns across multiple tiles.
Tiles like this were imported in significant quantities to Egypt around this time, as can be seen in the
Aqsunqur Mosque
(otherwise known as the "Blue Mosque") in
Cairo
, which was renovated in 1652 by Ibrahim Agha, a local
Janissary
commander.
[237]
- Iznik tiles in the 17th century
-
Tiles (with painted decoration above) on the back wall of the
Sultan Ahmed I Mosque
, Istanbul (circa 1617)
-
Detail of tiles in the Sultan Ahmed I Mosque, Istanbul (circa 1617)
-
Tiled interior of the Baghdad Kiosk in Topkapı Palace (1639)
-
Tiled mihrab of the Cinili Mosque (1640)
-
Iznik tiles in the
Aqsunqur Mosque
in Cairo, Egypt (1652)
-
The tiled interior of the
Hunkar Kasrı
(sultan's pavilion) at the
New Mosque
, Istanbul (circa 1663)
Tekfursaray and Kutahya tiles (18th century)
[
edit
]
Tile production in Iznik came to an end in the 18th century.
Ahmet III and his grand vizier attempted to revive the tile industry by establishing a new workshop between 1719 and 1724 at Tekfursaray in Istanbul, where a previous workshop had existed in the early 16th century.
Production continued here for a while but the tiles from this period are not comparable to earlier Iznik tiles.
Pottery production also continued and even increased at Kutahya, where new styles developed alongside imitations of older classical Ottoman designs.
The colours of tiles in this period were mostly turquoise and dark cobalt blue, while a brownish-red, yellow, and a deep green also appearing. The background was often discoloured, colours often ran together slightly, and the patterns were again typically limited to single tiles.
The earliest recorded Tekfursaray tiles are those made in 1724?1725 for the mihrab of the older Cezeri Kasım Pasha Mosque (1515) in Eyup, Istanbul.
Tekfursaray tiles are also found in the
Hekimo?lu Ali Pasha Mosque
(1734), on the
Ahmed III Fountain
(1729) near Hagia Sophia, and in some of the rooms and corridors of the Harem section in Topkapı Palace.
Kutahya tiles are present in Istanbul in the Yeni Valide Mosque in Uskudar (1708?1711), the Beylerbeyi Mosque (1777?1778), and arts of Topkapı Palace, and well as in mosques in other cities like Konya and Antalya.
The Kutahya and Tekfursary kilns notably produced a number of tiles and groups of tiles that were painted with illustrations of the Great Mosque of Mecca. These appear in multiple buildings the 18th century, but some examples of this appeared even earlier in Iznik tiles from the late 17th century.
Earlier examples show the
Kaaba
and the surrounding colonnades of the mosque in a more abstract style. Later examples in the 18th century, influenced by European art, employ
perspective
in depicting the mosque and they sometimes depict the entire city of Mecca.
Depictions of
Medina
and the
Prophet's Mosque
also appear in other specimens of the time. Examples of these pictorial tile paintings can be seen in the collections of several museums as well as inside some mosques (e.g. the Hekimo?lu Ali Pasha Mosque) and in several rooms at Topkapı Palace, such as the tiles adorning the mihrab of the prayer room of the Black Eunuchs.
After the Patrona Halil rebellion in 1730, which deposed Ahmet III and executed his grand vizier, the Tekfursaray kilns were left without a patron and quickly ceased to function.
The shortage of quality tiles in the 18th century also caused Iznik tiles from older buildings to be reused and moved to new ones on multiple occasions.
For example, when repairs were being done at Topkapı Palace in 1738 old tiles had to be removed from the Edirne Palace and shipped to Istanbul instead.
Ultimately, tilework decoration in Ottoman architecture lost its significance during the 18th century.
Kutahya nonetheless did continue to produce decorative tiles up to the 19th century, though the quality deteriorated in the late 18th century.
Some of the potters in the city were Armenian Christians and some of the tiles were commissioned for Armenian churches. Christian tile decoration of this period often depicted saints, angels, the
Virgin Mary
, and
biblical
scenes. Examples can be found at the
Krikor Lusarovic Church
in Tophane, Istanbul, and the Surp Astvazazin Church in Ankara, among others. Some of the tiles were exported further abroad and examples of them have been found in Jerusalem, Cairo, and
Venice
.
A moderately successful effort to revive Ottoman tile production occurred under Abdulhamid II in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, partly under the influence of the First National Architectural Movement. This period saw tiles produced for several new mosques, schools, and government buildings. These workshops eventually closed down after the First World War.
Stone carving
[
edit
]
Compared to the Anatolian Seljuk architecture that came before it, Ottoman architecture treated stone carving as a less important decorative medium. Do?an Kuban argues that this may be because the artisans responsible for stone carving under the Seljuks and Beyliks were concentrated in central and eastern Anatolia, as opposed to western Anatolia where early Ottoman architecture developed. The Ottomans also did not continue the Seljuk tradition of constructing monumental, highly ornate stone
portals
.
Lastly, as the classical Ottoman style took form, large solid walls that were common in more traditional structures were superseded by highly articulated structures with many elements joined together as part of a more complex whole. This would have made the decoration of large wall surfaces a much less important element of building design.
In the early Ottoman period, an exception to this dearth of traditional stone carving is the Green Mosque in Bursa, which features skilled carving of marble surfaces into vegetal arabesque and calligraphic motifs.
This was generally not repeated in subsequent Ottoman monuments, with the partial exception of
mihrabs
.
Nonetheless, stone carving was still used to enrich the details of building. Until the 18th century, high-quality stonework remained evident in the use of
muqarnas
(or "stalactite") carving in entrance portals,
minaret
balconies,
moldings
, and column
capitals
. It is also evident in the geometric
openwork
in stone balustrades and marble
minbars
.
Aside from these features, which were characteristic of buildings, Ottoman tombstone are notable for their very rich stone-carved ornamentation. The decoration of tombstones included vegetal and floral motifs, stone tops in the shape of headgear reflecting the social status of the deceased (usually for men), and, most consistently of all, inscriptions in graceful calligraphy. The level of ornamentation increased after the late 17th century and followed the changes in style that took place in architecture.
In the early 18th century, around the Tulip Period, diverse floral motifs were also added to the decorative repertoire of buildings.
With the advent of the Ottoman Baroque in the 18th century, Ottoman stone carving borrowed motifs directly from the relief ornamentation in French
Rococo architecture
, including acanthus leaves, shells, baroque moldings, and mixtilinear arch forms.
This was evident first and foremost in the fountains and sebils that became common in Istanbul from the early 18th century on.
Gardens
[
edit
]
Ottoman gardens were relatively informal and tended to accommodate natural topography, unlike gardens in many other parts of the Islamic world ? such as Iran or South Asia ? where a more formal design was preferred with a symmetrical four-part division or other geometric layout.
[250]
Gardens could be planted with large trees for shade, smaller
citrus
trees, and flowerbeds.
Tulips
were favored for flowers, even more so in the
Tulip Period
during the reign of Sultan
Ahmet III
(r. 1703?1730).
Palaces and leisure gardens
[
edit
]
Exemplifying this Ottoman trend, the gardens in
Topkapı Palace
were laid out according to the existing topography and emphasized naturalism over geometry. Some were organized as formal gardens whereas others took the appearance of semi-natural parks, with some sections consisting of formal
parterres
that were then placed inside larger informal garden areas.
Sultan Suleyman
was a lover of gardens and employed some 2,500 gardeners to tend to roses, cypresses, and other flowering plants in the palace grounds. Ahmet III had a tulip garden planted in the Fourth Court of the palace, just outside the Circumcision Room.
One documented exception to the general trend of informal design was the Karabali Garden, laid out in the early 16th century in
Kabata?
(a district of Istanbul). It had four symmetrical quadrants divided by axial paths, making it an uncommon example of the
chahar bagh
-type garden in an Ottoman context.
Garden pavilions were a common feature of palaces and private gardens, designed to provide shelter for residents and visitors as they enjoyed views of the gardens. They are depicted in many
Ottoman miniature
paintings. They were often simple open kiosks with arches or columns supporting a sloped roof, but there were also more monumental tower-pavilions such as the Tower of Justice in Topkapı Palace or the Cihannuma in the
Edirne Palace
.
[256]
Ottoman sultans and elites built many other palaces, leisure kiosks, and estates, especially along the shores of the
Bosphorus
and the
Sea of Marmara
around Istanbul. An illustration of the Bosphorus from 1738?9 shows many walled gardens lining both of its shores. These waterside palaces often had one side overlooking the water and the other side overlooking gardens.
The Topkapı-style tradition of a sprawling palace with multiple pavilions amidst gardens made a comeback in the late 19th century when Sultan
Abdulhamid II
(r. 1876?1909) moved his residence to the new
Yıldız Palace
, which is set inside a large park area on the slopes overlooking the Bosphorus.
Mosques and cemeteries
[
edit
]
Large Ottoman
kullliye
complexes, which consisted of a mosque with other charitable and religious buildings around it, were often set inside an outer enclosure. The grounds and common spaces of these enclosures were planted with grass and trees, around which the various structures were organized.
Some Ottoman mosques in Istanbul also had trees planted inside their courtyards. At the
Fatih Mosque
, the courtyard once contained four
cypress
trees planted around a central fountain, a composition likely originating from the now-vanished
atrium
of the
Hagia Sophia
, which featured the same arrangement. A late 18th-century illustration of the
Suleymaniye Mosque
also indicates the presence of trees in its courtyard.
According to Godfrey Goodwin, the first mosque to have a courtyard filled with a garden may be either the
Mesih Mehmed Pasha Mosque
or the
Nı?ancı Mehmed Pasha Mosque
,
both built in the same neighborhood around 1585.
In Ottoman society, cemeteries and places of burial were usually gardens. Cypress trees were a common presence in this context as well.
[250]
Many Ottoman mosques were accompanied by garden-cemeteries. At the Fatih and Suleymaniye mosques, these garden-cemeteries are set behind the
qibla
wall of the mosque and contain the mausoleum of the sultan who founded the mosque, along with other burials.
The cemeteries were planted with trees and flowers but the graves themselves may have also been imagined as miniature gardens, since they contain small plots laid out for planting and some of the tombstones even have holes to anchor vines.
Architecture in the provinces
[
edit
]
The main developments in Ottoman architecture generally took place in the capital cities (Bursa, Edirne, Istanbul) and other major administrative centers that were closely associated with the Ottoman dynasty, which are where imperial patronage was most concentrated.
Beyond these imperial centers, Ottoman provincial governors and other local elites sponsored their own constructions, but the architectural style of these buildings varied depending on local context.
In Europe (
Rumelia
) and in western
Anatolia
, Ottoman constructions mostly imitated the trends seen in the imperial centers, though there were still local variations and eccentricities.
In the
Balkans
, the reign of
Murad II
(
r.
1421?1451
with brief interruption) saw many renovations of early Ottoman buildings and also the construction of multiple new mosques and civic or religious complexes.
Nearly all the other important Ottoman monuments in the European provinces beyond Istanbul and Edirne date from the 16th and 17th century. Building activity was particularly intense in the 16th century, even surpassing that of Anatolia, but it declined over the course of the 17th century.
Sarajevo
,
Mostar
,
Skopje
,
Plovdiv
and
Thessaloniki
, were among the most important cities in the region and their Ottoman monuments often reflect a classical style.
As in many other provincial areas of the empire, mosques in the Balkans generally consisted of the single-dome type with one minaret, though some were also built with sloped wooden roofs instead.
In other regions which had been
Islamized
long before the Ottomans, local
Islamic architectural
traditions were not easily displaced and remained highly relevant in the construction of new buildings. In
Egypt
and the
Levant
(including
Syria
and
Palestine
), the
Mamluk architectural style
that existed before the
Ottoman conquest of 1516?1517
was largely continued, while incorporating elements and ideas of Ottoman architecture to varying degrees.
Some regions located on the edges between Anatolia, Syria, and
Mesopotamia
also resisted assimilation to the culture of the Ottoman capital and continued to be strongly influenced by local styles. Among important examples of these are
Diyarbakir
,
Van
, and
Adana
, which were important regional centers in the empire that retained or developed their own local architectural styles.
In
Baghdad
, Ottoman-era mosques were built almost entirely according to local traditions.
Further afield in North Africa, particularly in
Ottoman Algeria
and
Ottoman Tunisia
, which were autonomous for much of the Ottoman era, the local
western Islamic style
was blended with Ottoman architecture in different ways.
[271]
See also
[
edit
]
References
[
edit
]
- ^
- Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Ottoman".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press. p. 82.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
Throughout their history the Ottomans remained supporters of art and artists. Under their patronage a distinctive architectural style developed that combined the Islamic traditions of Anatolia, Iran and Syria with those of the Classical world and Byzantium. The result was a rationalist monumentality that favored spatial unity and architectonic expression.
- Kuban 2010
, p. 7: "Ottoman architecture developed as a unique, enduring architectural style combining the Mediterranean and Near and Middle Eastern traditions in parallel with the political structure of an Ottoman Empire situated at the point of intersection of Asia and Europe and of the Islamic and Christian worlds."
- Gladiss, Almut von (2011). "The Ottoman Empire: Architecture". In Hattstein, Markus; Delius, Peter (eds.).
Islam: Art and Architecture
. h.f.ullmann.
ISBN
9783848003808
.
Ottoman art has developed its own particular form of expression in architecture, ceramic tiles and vases, textiles, and last but not least, the art of the book. It set new standards of quality in many fields. The unrestrained enthusiasm of the ruler for ceremonial, the immense financial strength of the empire, an appreciation of planning and precision, as well as an inexhaustible source of ideas which flowed from the master builders, artists, and craftsmen from both Islamic and Christian backgrounds, all helped Ottoman art to flourish over a long period of time.
- Blair & Bloom 1995
, p. 134: "The longevity of the Ottomans led to a comparatively clear and consistent stylistic development."
- ^
Kuban 2010
, p. 679: "The second important problem in any account of Ottoman architecture concerns the stages in the emergence of radical change. The Green Imaret, Suleymaniye, Nuruosmaniye and Ortakoy mosques are expressions of radically different cultural eras. In the history of Ottoman architecture, architectural design passed through several successive but very clearly distinct stages."
- ^
Freely 2011
, p. 35 "The earliest extant Ottoman buildings are in north-western Anatolia, where the Osmanlı Turks first appeared toward the end of the thirteenth century."
- ^
- Harris, Cyril M., ed. (1977). "Seljuk architecture".
Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture
. Dover Publications. p. 485.
- Ousterhout, Robert (1995).
"Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture"
.
Muqarnas
.
12
: 60.
ISBN
9004103147
.
- Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Ottoman".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press. p. 82.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
Throughout their history the Ottomans remained supporters of art and artists. Under their patronage a distinctive architectural style developed that combined the Islamic traditions of Anatolia, Iran and Syria with those of the Classical world and Byzantium. The result was a rationalist monumentality that favored spatial unity and architectonic expression.
- Ostergren & Le Boss 2011
, pp. 215?216: "The grand tradition of Ottoman architecture, established in the 16th century, differed markedly from that of the earlier Moors. It was derived from both the Byzantine Christian tradition, outlined above, and native Middle Eastern forms used by the Islamic Seljuk Turks, who preceded the Ottomans. The Byzantine tradition, particularly as embodied in Hagia Sophia, was perhaps the major source of inspiration."
- Freely 2011
, p. 21: "The mosques of the classical period are more elaborate than those of earlier times. They derive from a fusion of a native Turkish tradition with certain elements of the plan of Haghia Sophia, the former cathedral of Constantinople, converted into a mosque in 1453 by Mehmet the Conqueror."
- ^
Freely 2011
, p. 21 "The mosques of the classical period are more elaborate than those of earlier times. They derive from a fusion of a native Turkish tradition with certain elements of the plan of Haghia Sophia, the former cathedral of Constantinople, converted into a mosque in 1453 by Mehmet the Conqueror."
- ^
Ostergren & Le Boss 2011
, pp. 215?216: "The grand tradition of Ottoman architecture, established in the 16th century, differed markedly from that of the earlier Moors. It was derived from both the Byzantine Christian tradition, outlined above, and native Middle Eastern forms used by the Islamic Seljuk Turks, who preceded the Ottomans. The Byzantine tradition, particularly as embodied in Hagia Sophia, was perhaps the major source of inspiration."
- ^
a
b
c
d
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Ottoman".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010).
Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire
. Infobase Publishing. p. 50.
ISBN
978-1-4381-1025-7
.
- ^
Unver 2019
, pp. 18?22, 55 and after.
sfn error: no target: CITEREFUnver2019 (
help
)
- ^
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair; Sheila S. (2009).
"Kemalettin"
.
Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art & Architecture: Three-Volume Set
. Oxford University Press. p. 379.
ISBN
978-0-19-530991-1
.
- ^
a
b
c
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Architecture; VI. c. 1250?c. 1500; B. Anatolia".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Bursa".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Iznik".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
Vibhavari Jani,
Diversity in Design: Perspectives from the Non-Western World
, (Fairchild Books, 2011), 135.
- ^
"Turkish triangle | architecture"
.
Encyclopedia Britannica
. Retrieved
2021-08-06
.
- ^
Koprulu Ba?bancı, Ozlem (2012).
"Commerce in the Emerging Empire: Formation of the Ottoman Trade Center in Bursa"
. In Gharipour, Mohammad (ed.).
The Bazaar in the Islamic City: Design, Culture, and History
. Oxford University Press. pp. 97?114.
ISBN
9789774165290
.
- ^
Duranti, Andrea (2012).
"A Caravanserai on the Route to Modernity: The Case of the Valide Han of Istanbul"
. In Gharipour, Mohammad (ed.).
The Bazaar in the Islamic City: Design, Culture, and History
. Oxford University Press. pp. 229?250.
ISBN
9789774165290
.
- ^
Turko?lu, ?nci.
"Grand Bazaar"
.
Discover Islamic Art, Museum With No Frontiers
. Retrieved
2020-06-24
.
- ^
a
b
Goodwin, Godfrey (1993).
Sinan: Ottoman Architecture & its Values Today
. London: Saqi Books.
ISBN
978-0-86356-172-6
.
- ^
Stratton, Arthur (1972).
Sinan
. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
ISBN
978-0-684-12582-4
.
- ^
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Architecture; I. Introduction; E. Patrons and architects.".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
a
b
c
d
e
Bloom, Jonathan M.; Blair, Sheila S., eds. (2009). "Architecture; VII. c. 1500?c. 1900; A. Ottoman Empire".
The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780195309911
.
- ^
"Qasr al-Azm - Discover Islamic Art - Virtual Museum"
.
islamicart.museumwnf.org
. Retrieved
2021-08-28
.
- ^
"?shak Pa?a Palace - Discover Islamic Art - Virtual Museum"
.
islamicart.museumwnf.org
. Retrieved
2021-08-28
.
- ^
Kuban 2010
, p. 605 and after.
- ^
Kuban 2010
, p. 673 and elsewhere.
- ^
Dolmabahce Palace
. Istanbul: TBMM National Palaces. 2013.
ISBN
9786054700387
.
- ^
Ekinci, Ekrem Bu?ra (2017-01-06).
"Ottoman-era clock towers telling time from Balkans to Middle East"
.
Daily Sabah
. Retrieved
2021-09-08
.
- ^
Kuban 2010
, pp. 606-607 and after.
- ^
a
b
c
Bozdogan, Sibel (2001).
Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic
. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
ISBN
978-0-295-98152-9
.
- ^
Ersoy, Ahmet (2016).
Architecture and the late Ottoman historical imaginary: reconfiguring the architectural past in a modernizing empire
. Routledge. pp. 241?242.
ISBN
9780367432836
.
- ^
a
b
c
d
Necipo?lu, Gulru (1990).
"From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change of Taste in Sixteenth-Century Ceramic Tiles"
.
Muqarnas
.
7
: 136?170.
doi
:
10.2307/1523126
.
JSTOR
1523126
– via JSTOR.
- ^
Behrens-Abouseif, Doris (1989).
Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction
. Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill. p. 116.
ISBN
9789004096264
.
- ^
a
b
Goodwin, Godfrey (1988).
"Gardens of the Dead in Ottoman Times"
.
Muqarnas
.
5
: 61?62.
doi
:
10.2307/1523110
.
ISSN
0732-2992
.
- ^
Atasoy, Nurhan (2004).
"Ottoman Garden Pavilions and Tents"
.
Muqarnas
.
21
: 15?19.
ISSN
0732-2992
.
- ^
Degeorge, Gerard (2004).
Damascus
. Flammarion. pp. 192?198.
ISBN
2080304569
.
- ^
Bloom, Jonathan M. (2020).
Architecture of the Islamic West: North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, 700?1800
. Yale University Press. pp. 214?243.
ISBN
9780300218701
.
Bibliography
[
edit
]
- Acun, Hakkı (2011).
Osmanlı ?mparatorlu?u Saat Kuleleri
. Ankara: Ataturk Kultur Merkezi Yayınları.
ISBN
9789751623706
.
- Atasoy, Nurhan (2011).
Harem
. Bilkent Kultur Giri?imi Publications.
ISBN
9786055495060
.
- Blair, Sheila S.; Bloom, Jonathan M. (1995).
The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800
. Yale University Press.
ISBN
9780300064650
.
- Boykov, Grigor (2013).
Mastering the conquered space: resurrection of urban life in Ottoman upper Thrace (14th - 17th c)
(Thesis). ?hsan Do?ramacı Bilkent University (PhD thesis).
hdl
:
11693/15822
.
- Carswell, John (2006).
Iznik Pottery
(Second ed.). British Museum Press.
ISBN
9780714124414
.
- Ersoy, Ahmet (2007).
"Architecture and the search for Ottoman origins in the Tanzimat period"
. In Bailey, Julia; Bozdo?an, Sibel; Necipo?lu, Gulru (eds.).
History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the "Lands of Rum"
. Muqarnas. Brill. pp. 117?139.
ISBN
978-90-04-16320-1
.
- Freely, John (2011).
A History of Ottoman Architecture
. WIT Press.
ISBN
978-1-84564-506-9
.
- Goodwin, Godfrey (1971).
A History of Ottoman Architecture
. Thames & Hudson.
ISBN
0-500-27429-0
.
- Kuban, Do?an (2010).
Ottoman Architecture
. Translated by Mill, Adair. Antique Collectors' Club.
ISBN
9781851496044
.
- Necipo?lu, Gulru (2007).
"Creation of a national genius: Sinan and the historiography of "classical" Ottoman architecture"
. In Bailey, Julia; Bozdo?an, Sibel; Necipo?lu, Gulru (eds.).
History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the "Lands of Rum"
. Muqarnas. Brill. pp. 160?161.
ISBN
978-90-474-2332-4
.
- Oney, Gonul (2002). "Ottoman Tiles and Pottery". In Inalcık, Halil; Renda, Gunsel (eds.).
Ottoman Civilization
. Vol. 2. Ankara: Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture. pp. 698?735.
ISBN
9751730732
.
- Ostergren, Robert C.; Le Boss, Mathias (2011).
The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment
(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
ISBN
9781609181413
.
- Rihawi, Abd al-Qadir al-; Ouechek, Emilie E. (1975). "Les deux
takiyya
de Damas".
Bulletin d'etudes orientales
. Vol. 28. Institut Francais du Proche-Orient. pp. 217?225.
JSTOR
41604595
.
- Ruggles, D. Fairchild
(2008).
Islamic Gardens and Landscape
. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Press
.
ISBN
9780812240252
.
JSTOR
j.ctt3fhhqz
.
- Rustem, Unver (2019).
Ottoman Baroque: The Architectural Refashioning of Eighteenth-Century Istanbul
. Princeton University Press.
ISBN
9780691181875
.
- Sumner-Boyd, Hilary; Freely, John (2010).
Strolling Through Istanbul: The Classic Guide to the City
(Revised ed.). Tauris Parke Paperbacks.
ISBN
978-0-85773-005-3
.
- Trankova, Dimana; Georgieff, Anthony; Matanov, Hristo (2011).
A Guide to Ottoman Bulgaria
. Sofia: Vagabond Media.
ISBN
9789549230673
. Archived from
the original
on 2011-11-15.
- Uludas, Burcu Alarslan; Adiloglu, Fatos (24 October 2011).
"Islamic Gardens with a Special Emphasis on the Ottoman Paradise Gardens: The Sense of Place between Imagery and Reality"
(PDF)
.
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
.
1
(4): 44?96
. Retrieved
15 July
2019
.
- Yerasimos, Stephane (2012).
Constantinople: Istanbul's Historical Heritage
. Translated by Schreiber, Sally M.; Hoffman, Uta; Loeffler, Ellen (English ed.). H.F.Ullmann.
ISBN
9783848000531
.
Further reading
[
edit
]
External links
[
edit
]
|
---|
Styles
| |
---|
Elements
| Materials
| | |
---|
Arches
| |
---|
Roofs
| |
---|
Religious
objects
| |
---|
Decorations
| |
---|
Rooms
| |
---|
Gardens
| |
---|
Outdoor
objects
| |
---|
Passive
cooling
| |
---|
|
---|
Types
| Religious
| |
---|
Civilian
| |
---|
Military
| |
---|
|
---|
Resources
| |
---|
Influences
| |
---|
Category pages
| |
---|
|
|
---|
|
BCE
| |
---|
1st millennium
| |
---|
1000?1500
| |
---|
1500?1750
| |
---|
1750?1900
| |
---|
1900?1950
| |
---|
1950?2000
| |
---|
2000?present
| |
---|
Regional
| |
---|
|
---|
Sovereign states
| |
---|
States with limited recognition
| |
---|
Dependencies and
other territories
| |
---|
History
| |
---|