Ottoman Limestone (Küfeki) Typology in the Mid Sixteenth Century

istanbul 05-07 nov 2008

ar on structural maso-·"

__====~~~~~e~ ••~ı.===T~~~~~~.~S in

_~-&.Jiii~~ •••naça

proceedings »~L ~-;~ ~;"':

ernatio a•semınar Ostructuramasonr

8th International Seminar on Structural MasonryNovember 5th to 7th, 2008: Istanbul Technical University, Taşkışla Campus, Istanbul, Turkey

Preparation for Publication: Şebnem KULOGLU

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in a retrieval system or transmittedby other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, excluding shortquotations for the use in preparation of reviews and technical and scientific papers, without priorwritten permission of the organizer of 8th International Seminar on Structural Masorıry. Anyrecommendation, suggestion or conclusions expressed in the published papers are those of authors andin no way reflect the views of sponsors or the editors.

Editors: Braj P. SINHA

Leyla TANAÇAN

Graphic Design: M. CemALTUN

Gülseren EROL

Serkan YATAGAN

Publisher: Çizgi Basım Yayın Ltd. Şti., +90 212 251 83 13,Galipdede Cad. No:77 Beyoğlu 34420 Istanbul, Turkey

International Seminar on Structural Masonry (8th: 2008: Istanbul, Turkey)

8th international seminar on structural masonry: proceedings / ed. Braj P. Sinha, Leyla Tanaçan.-Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University, 2008.672 p.

ISBN 978-975-561-342-0

l.Masonry - Congresses 2. Building materials - Congresses 3. Structural engineering - Congresses1. Sinha, Braj P. II. Tanaçan, Leyla

TA670. 158 2008 CIP

lı ıı

~~--------~

Yılmaz AKKAYA, TurkeySüheyl AKMAN, TurkeyFevziye AKÖZ, Turkey

ihal ARIOGLU, TurkeySubhash ANAND, USA

-Sernra AYDıNLI, TurkeyHasan BODUROGLU, TurkeyRoberto CAPOZUCCA, Iıalylekai CELEP, TurkeyJian -Fei CHEN, UKMarcio CORREA, BrazilFeridun ClLI, TurkeyKemal ÇORAPÇIOGLU, TurkeyJohn DAWE, CanadaDina DıAYALA, UKAhmet ERSEN, TurkeyHalit Yaşa ERSOY, TurkeyCharles FAIRFlELD, UKMike FORDE, UKHeyecan GİRİTLİ, TurkeyCaspar J.W.P. GROOT, NeıherlandsKadir GÜLER, TurkeyErol GÜRDAL, TurkeyPelin GÜNDEŞ BAKıR, TurkeyAyşegül GÜZEL, TurkeyOrhan HACIHASANOGLU, TurkeyWolfram JAEGER, GermanyMustafa KARAGÜLER, Turkey

Hemant KAUSHIK, IndiaFouad KHALAF, UKBruce KING, USABimal KUMAR, UKMehmet ŞENER KÜÇÜKDOGU, TurkeyGonzalo LARRAMBEBERE, UruguayBodhan LEWISKY, PolandCristina GONZALEZ-LONGO, UKPaulo B. LOURENÇO, PortugalPaul MAURENBRECHER, CanadaJean-Claude MOREL, FranceDavid Mc LEAN, USADirk MARTEN, NetherlandsFemando MARTIRENA, CubaKaya ÖZGEN, TurkeyPankaj PANKAJ, UKRemo PEDRESCHI, UKDurgesh RAl, lndiaPere ROCA, SpainSam SAMARASINGHE, AustraliaArturo E. SCHUL Tl, USATim STRA TFORD, UKÖzkan ŞENGÜL, TurkeyCanan TAŞDEMİR, TurkeyDimitris THEODOSSOPOULOS, UKZerrin YILMAZ, TurkeyErcan YÜKSEL, Turkey

COMMITTEES

Organizing Committee

Braj P. SINHA (Seminar and Organizing Chair)Leyla TANAÇAN, ITU (Local Chair)M. Cem ALTUN, ITUSeden ACUN, ITUÜlgerBULUT

Gülseren EROL, ITUŞebnem KULOGLU, ITU (Seminar Executive Secreteriaı)Haluk SESİGÜR, ITUAslıhan TAYİL, ITUSerkan YATAGAN,ITU

International Scientific Committee

AcknowledgementThe organizing committee of the 8th International Seminar on Structural Masonry thankfullyacknowledges the valuable contribution of the members of the Scientific Committee in reviewing thepapers.

v

Static and Dynamic Testing of an Historical Masonry DomeGianni BARTOLI, Michele BETTI, Maurizio ORLANDO, Paolo SPINELLI

Historic Masonry under in-Plane Stress StateRoberto CAPOZUCCA

Restoring Adobe Masonry in a World Cultural Heritage Site:The Sistani House in Bam, IranWoltram JAEGER, Christian FUCHS

Structural Rehabilitation of the Tutunsuz Baba Tomb inEdirne Using Externally Applied Steel RingsHaluk SESIGUR, Oguz C. ÇELIK, Feridun ÇlLI

The Three-Arched Middle Bronze Age Gate at Tel Dan:A Structural Investigation of an Extraordinary Archaeological SiteRosa FRANCES

Ottoman Limestone (Küfeki) Typology in the Mid Sixteenth CenturySerpil CELİK, İlknur AKTU(; KOLA Y

AResearch on Conservation ofVolcanic Tuffs Used in Historical BuildingsSeden ACUN ÖZGÜNLER

Physical and Mechanical Properties of Anadolu Hisari's MortarsSedat KURUGÖL, Ahmet GÜLEC

From 1856 Block Masonry Coastal Palace to 2008 Mixed SystemUniversity Campus; Cemile and Münire Sultan PalacesÇiğdem TEKİN, Meltem ŞAHİN, Cüneyt DİRİ

The Role of Diagnostics in the Restoration ProjectAntonella GUIDA, Ippolita MECCA, Nicola MASINI

Conservation and Repair of Historic BuildingsFouad KHALAF, Humayun REZA, Charles FAIRFIELD

The Architecture and Technology of Stratification in theMasonry of the Abbey ofSanta Maria Nova at the Roman ForumCristina GONZALEZ-LONGO, Dimitris THEODOSSOPOULOS

Rain Penetration in Historic Fired Clay Brick MasonryCaspar J. w.P. GROOT, Jos M. T. GUNNEWEG

MISCELLANEOUS TOPIC S

Cavitation Erosion in Brickwork Masonry SewersCharles FAIRFIELD

Structural Considerations for the Use of Masonry as an Efficient Construction MethodÖzgür BEZGİN. Ümit ÖZKAN. Murat ŞENER, Orhan MANZAK

457

467

475

483

489

497

505

513

523

531

541

549

557

567

577

Xl

issl11 08istanbul 05-07 nov 2008

8th international seaninar on structural anasonry

Ottoman Limestone (Küfekı) Typology*in the Mid Sixteenth Century

Serpil ÇELİKl and İlknur AKTUG KOLAy2

ABSTRACT

This study aims to unveil the unknowns in Ottoman limestone typology in the cas e of the Süleymaniye Complexin Istanbul within the cantext of archival materials, recent scholarship and present structural clues.

KEYWORDS

Ottoman architecture, Traditional buildings, History of architectonic science and technology, Limestone.

1 INTRODUCTION

On the threshold of the majority of both vast archival documents revealed heretofore such as construction times,ceremony histories, account books, construction correspondence, and maximal price books, and potential, easilyobservable, and intact structural evidenees, the stones of the Süleymaniye in Istanbul keep their unique place inthe field of the history of Ottoman architectonic science and technology [Çelik 200 I]. In this essay, in the case ofthe Süleymaniye, the limestone, and its typology in the mid sixteenth century has been reconsidered in microscale within the context of archivalmaterials, recent scholarship, and present structural c1ues on hand. The majorproblem has been on the terminology in the archival materials that were mainly accounts and correspondencewritten out by accountants, and scribes, and not by architects. So, the analogies between large imperialcomplexes such as the Sultan Ahmet [Cafer Çelebi], the Nuruosmaniye [Ahmed Efendi], and the Ayazma[Seyyid İshak], with accounts shedding light to their structures, and the Süleymaniye helped c1ear some points.

The Süleymaniye as one of the pre-eminent enterprises of High Ottoman Art sprawling from Budapest to Cairowas considered to be as sacred as the Kaba [Mustafa ibn Celal, fol. 473b] and Masjid-i Aksa [Yerasimos 1993],to be as beautiful as the Seven Wonders of the World [Sanderson 1931], and to be as large as Belgrade[Demschwam 1992]. No other mosque is adomed with so many columns that once stood in Roman temples andByzantine churches. In this respect, the Süleymaniye is such a symbolically significant album in which manyancient civilizations such as Roman, and Byzantine, and their sacred reminiscences revive [Necipcğlu 1985].Not only did it represent the common heritage of humanity but it also translated its past into the future [Kuban1987, Necipoğlu 1993] synthesizing the legacies of Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the Balkans, and EastemEurope [Siiı Mustafa Çelebi, fol. 3a). As a five-century-old structure, the complex is a vivid testimony to theOttoman endeavor in the field of architectural science and technology in terms of its sophistication, cultivation,and grandeur. As a recollection not only eternalizing Süleyman's brilliant conquests, but also adding Roman, andByzantine reminiscences, it is a representational promise of the Ottoman architectural practice. it proved itstechnology through the centuries, challenging countless disasters including earthquakes. To get that durablestructure, Ottoman architect-engineers and craftsmen in building craft knew how to choose and employ stone as

This study has been published in detail in ilknur Aktuğ KOLAY & Serpil ÇELİK, 2006, 'Ottoman Stone Acquisition in the rnidSixteenth Century: The Süleymaniye Cornplex in ıstanbul', Muqarnas 23, 251-272.Mukarnas Yapı, Teyyareci Cemal Sokak, 14/6, Şişli, 34360 ıstanbul, Turkey, [email protected] Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, 34437 Istanbul, Turkey, [email protected]

Journeyman architect (Halife, 12 akçe a day)

Master mason (Usta tafiç», 50 akçe)

Messenger (Çavufl, 2 akçe)

Storekeeper (Anbarc>, 2 akçe)

Haseki (4 akçe)

Bookkeeper (Katip, 8 akçe)

? ? ?

8th international seminar on structural masonry, istanbul 05-07 nov 200\\

the most significant building material ın masonry, making a considerable use of existing building supplies[Figure 1-4).

Available archival documents related to the Süleymaniye are the account books (defters) and their summaries(icmals) comprising wages and salaries (icarat) and wholesale purchases (mubaya fit), which were evidentlypresented to Sultan, and imperial correspondence such as edicts, decrees, and court orders (kavanln, ahkam veevamir-i humayun). The documents were published by Barkan in 1972 [Barkan 1972], and first investigated byRogers in 1982 [Rogers i982] and recently by Yerasimos in 2002 [Yerasirnos 2002).

2 PROVISION OF LlMESTO E

Whether quarried or gathered, the building stones used in the Süleymaniye were extracted within the same task.The spolia in private properties were purchased if owners allowed, and the harın caused by extractions was fixed[Barkan 1979, Documents 48 and 61). In gathering or quarrying, Ottoman building craftsmen worked within theassistance of a nucleus staff comprised the imperial architects either master or journeyrnan in charge of technicalcounterpart, the fiduciaries in charge of financial counterpart, and the subaşıs and yayabaşıs in charge of thecommanders of the conscripts of local Janissary corps [Documents 14-17, 32, 33, 54, and 92] [Table 1]. Thelocal kadıs were the guarantors to make those high-ranking soldiers corporate harmoniously with the nucleusstaff. The kadı handled the main responsibility for stone searching, gathering and dispatching tasks. Had doubledmistake, not only would he have been fired for good but also have been punished to death. He was supposed tooffer financial assistance supported by the fann (mukataa) and sheep Ladet-i agnam) tax incomes of the empirein his domain. If cavalryrnen had not find the mouey from the local incornes, the cornptroller, through hisfiduciaries, would have sent it in.

TabIe 1. Teams of the Ottornan Imperial Limestone Quarry at Haznedar.

Teanıs 6-29 Decenıber1553

30 Dec. 1553-26 Jan. 1554

16 March-21 April 1554

Administration Habib Halife Cüneyd Halife Habib Halife

?

3 ? ?

Conscripts (Gslnıan-» Acemiyan)

Stonernasorıs ıSengtrafian, 3-4 akçe)

Sappers (La€>mgeran, 2 akçe)

Debris porters ıKabalac.yan; i akçe)

Shoulder porters (Hanımalan-» püfit, 3akçe)

2209

558

2722

8

1918

518

774

112

3312

862

4916

192

Logistic Support

Cooks tTabbahin, i akçe)

Drinking water servers tSakkayan, i akçe)

Mevlana imam (3 akçe)

Blacksmith (Haddad, 5 akçe)

17

?

17

2

17

?

The stone ships and boats picked up the blocks destined to Istanbul on their round trips through the Propontisand Aegean seas to the main seaports of Istanbul such as Eminönü (iskele-i Emin, ancient Port Neorion), andUnkapar» (iskele-i Kapan-ı Dakryk, ancient Port Platea). Stones were first stored on the seaports then, whenneeded, they were dragged or ox-carted from the seaports to the construction site [Documents 114-119, 125-129,221,257,523, and 350). With 10,518 ox-carts of block unloaded on, the Unkapan- seaport, the closer one, was

498

8th international seminar on structural masonry, istanbul 05-07 nov 2008

more preferred than that of the Eminönü where 7,314 were unloaded. In water transport, very remarkably, thespecifically designed stone ships and boats were employed [Docurnent 110]. They have simply been c1assified asstone galley (kadsrga-i seng), stone vessel (sefine-i seng), wheel-powered heavy stone vessel (sefine-i seng-ibüriirk. ba-dolabı, and wheel-powered light stone vessel (sefine-i seng-i küçek ba-dolabı [Document 113]. Inaddition, some flat-bottomed barges of the Ottoman naval power as canon vessel (sefine-i top), and horse vessel(sefine-i esb-i hassas were employed. They were all well equipped with war wares in case of a sea-battle[Docurnent 109]. Apart from those imperial stone ships and boats (miri gemiler), there were occasionally hiredprivate barges (navlun gemileri, rençber gemileri).

The stone blocks brought to the construction site from various corners of the empire were kept in the imperialstore that was called hassa anban[Oocument 235] or hrzane-i amire [Documerıt 347] literally imperial treasure.it was permanently stationed in the Sa ray-ı cedid, the Topkapı Palace, and had a ternporary braneh at theeonstruetion site [Documcnts 285, 288, and 340-342]. Other branehes were at the quarries, aneient sites, jetties,and mainiyat the Eminönü and Unkapar» seaports [Documerıt 35 i]. On August 8, 1552, a remarkable amount oftimber, nail, and ro of materials were dispatehed to the eonstruetion site to construet the sheds, where theextraeted and quarried bloeks were stored and dressed, the barraeks, where the labors were housed, and ateliers[Docurnents 235 and 35 i [. The ateliers, where workers gathered from various regions of the Empire for thisproject worked, were eonstrueted next to the related building material stores and both were temporary struetures[Doeuments 340-342].

The stones were defıned by number of units (kıt 'a), linear (zira and kor), and eubie (araba or acele, and hamil,or yük) measure units. The zira, mason eubit, is, like the English yard, a un it of length, 0.757m, splitting totwenty-four thumbs (rarmaks), 31.54mm each.' The kor (eourse of masorıry) [Cafer Çelebi, fol. 35r] is anotherunit of length, seven and a half ziras (5.68m) [Document 194], employed by the builders to measure the length ofstone eourses. The araba, ox-eart is a unit of eubie measure that refers to an oxeart of load, while the ham if(burden) refers to two panniers of load on a packhorse.

Top three building stones of the Süleymaniye were Iimestone ikufeki), firestone (ad tafl» and the Prokonnesianmarble (menner) and they were mainly proeured from the Marmara Region. Limestone and firestone werebasieally quarried [Gnoli 1988, Ward-Perkins 1992, Borghini 1992, Waelkens et al. 1992], while the marble wasastonishingly just gathered on the way praetieed sinee Byzantine era [Müller- Wiener 1983, Mango i995]. Thesame equipment and teams were devoted to this erıorrnous ertort to aequire apt stones.

Figure 1. Southwestem façade of the Süleymaniye Figure 2. Southwestem main suspending arch.

Figure 3. Northwestern Iaçade of the Süleymaniye Figure 4. Northwestern serni-dorne and dome.

Thc Otrornan mensurement unit zira varies through the ceııturies. An architectural zira is iııdicated to be 0.738-0.757111. Theearliest zira stick from the period of Selim III (I 789- i807) measures 0.757 meters,

499

8th international seminar on struetural masonry, istanbul 05-07 nov 2008

Küfeki or Baksrköy mactra Iimestone is the main building supply of the Süleymaniye, and varies in color fromcream to gray, and in use [Figure 5, 6]. it was employed in body walls, partition walls, piers, buttresses,columns, arches, pandantives, domes, finials, roof tiles, facings, veneers, pavements, steps, balustrades, windowframes, jambs, and sills. AIso, it was used in foundations [PeynircicClu et al. 198 i, Istanbul FoundationsHeadquarter Archives]. According to the registers, Iimestone was mainly quarried from the state Iimestonequarry at Haznedar (seng-i kiifeki karheng-i miri, karheng-l miri der kurb-s karye-i Hazlnedar) that stretchedfrom the farm of Mehmed Pasha in Davudpafta to the farm of Lütfi Pasha in Haznedar [Documents 100, 101,127, and 533]. However, a little amount of limestone was gathered from Perintos, Saray-ı Atik, and EdirnePalace. Used up since Roman era, the Haznedar quarries have been carpeted by residential areas today, and areno longer in use. In association with both the soil profile of Haznedar, and the mounds formed by pit excavationsvisible till 1955 [Sayar & Erguvanl- 1955],4 the limestone was quarried from the depth of six and a half meters inorder to obtain large-size, high-quality building stones without any crack. After quarrying (katkerden) that wasinitiated on March 12, 1550, and preliminary dressing (hamıırafikerdenş, the blocks were ox-carted to theconstruction site during December 30, 1553-April 12, 1554, to subsequent finer dressing (t>rafiiden), setting(binakerden), and smoothing and polishing (perdahtkerden) phases during March 17-May 17, 1554 [Documents100, 102,121-123, 125, and 127-133. For phases see Document 576]. Some unfinished moldings on the facadesgive clues upon final tooling [Figure 7, 8]. Specified by the chief architect's templates that were out of wood[Document 544], the blocks were nearly finished to ready-shaped blocks (kalsb) on the quarry's mason yards toavoid both unnecessary weight in transportation, and wasting room on the construction site on the way practicedsince Roman era. The quarry was ignited for the second time on January 29, 1558, for the construction of thethird and fourth madrasas, and the only stone dispatched from the quarry during August 14-19, 1558, was seng-ihelik, rubble stone [Documents 132 and 336].

'41~;t- -,_.;;.

Figure 5. The Northern Entrance Baldachin. Figure 6. Roof out of limestone. Detail from Figure 5.Roof, dome, arches, and walls are out of limestone.

Figure 7. Unfinished tooling. The western minaret Figure 8. Tooling phases. Detai1 from Figure 7 .of theSüleymaniye.

See the map of the tcrritory between I-Iebdomon and the Theodosian City Walls in Alexander van Millingen, 1899, ByzantiııeCoıısıantinople, London, 316.

500

501


3 LlMESTO E TYPOLOGY

Through the registers, the blocks of Iimestone have been c1assified as seng-i büzürk or dergah (freestone), seng-ikalıp (dimension stone), seng-i çap, seng-i zira (ashlar course stone), seng-i helik (rubble storıe), kemer ıabanı(impost) [Document 63], seng-i pehlu (jamb), seng-i harpüşte (copestone), seng-i minare (minaret stone), seng-ikaldırım (pavement stone), döşeme-i yujka (thin pavement), and seng-i kapak (sewer cover stone) [Figure 9].While seng-i zira, seng-i he/ik, and seng-i kaldırım were basically provided from the state quarry at Haznedarduring July 28-August 3, i554, sewer cover, minaret, and copestone blocks were just purchased in accordancewith the chief architect's templates and valorizations, as the commissioners purchased extra dimension stones,jambs, ashlar course blocks, and pavements [Documents 125, 127, and 139]. In terms of its shape and size, thelimestone was defined by number of units (kıt 'a), length (zira and kor), and cubic measures (araba or acele, andhami! or yük) [Document 128].

~ ~"" -,se"g-;~ A -, [00Seng-i kal?b uBSeng-i zira ~888~~

Seng-i pehlu DDODDDDDDDD•....•....•050 700cm

Figure 9. The Iimestone blocks sent to the construction site of the Süleymaniye Complex from the ImperialLimestone Quarry at Haznedar (The block marked with an A is a block sent from the ruins of Nicomedia by

Nikola Körez, who is one of Sinan's best assistants.) [Kolay & Çelik 2006].

The limestone used in the foundations was kind of rubble, and, therefore, called pdrehd-i seng-i beyaz beriiy-itemel (white stone pieces for the foundation) [Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, D. 43, Book 168].

The seng-i büziirk or dergah, approximately five ziras (3.78m) long, is freestone that was easily worked in eachdirection to extract an appropriate block of seng-i kal-p [Document 127]. Voussoirs, and the blocks of dome andpandantives were extracted from the seng-i buzürk on the construction sites mason yards. However, two largeIimestone voussoirs (kemer-i büzürk) were procured from Kyzikos on August 26, 1550, along with fourteendergahs that are two ziras and thirteen thumbs by three ziras (I 92 by 227cm), and one zira and thirteerı thumbsby three ziras (I 16 by 227cm), thirteen seng-i büzürks that are six ziras by two ziras by fifteen thumbs (454 by150 by 47cm), and four large square-planned bases (kürsi-i biiriirk ç.har kö/fe) [Documents 76 and 84/a].

The seng-i kalıp, a dimension stone, was, like Kavak firestone, one zira wide, and eighteen thumbs thick (75 by56cm), and its length varies from two to seven and a half ziras (15 I-568cm) [Documents i25-127]. According toa comprehensive survey pursued throughout the present, intact structures of the cornplex, it was used for themain piers of the mosque, where the Süleymaniye's largest limestone blocks were employed within thedimensions of 63 by i00 by 150cm, and 6 i by 75 by 260em. Thirty-three blocks, and six oxearts of seng-i kalıpwere quarried during March i7-May 17, 1554, while ninety-one blocks were purchased during July 28-August 3,1554 [Documents 125,127-129, and 138].

-


The seng-i çap (block dressed to a specified dimension?) was just purchased during July 28-August 3, 1554,with a length of 417 ziras (3 i5.6m) [Document 139].

The seng-i zira is the block of ashlar course stone and is defined by the zira unit. However, during collecting,and setting works, buildcrs used the kor unit instead of zira. According to the survey on the present structures ofthe complex, the blocks are 42- i90cm long, i9-43cm wide, and 29-63cm high. The longest block takes place inthe southeastern enclosurc with a length of 244cm. After the quarried blocks had been taken from the quarryduring March 17-May 17,1554, some additional blocks were purchased with a total length of2538 ziras (1.9km)during July 28-August 3, i554 [Documents 125, 127-129, and 139].

The seng-i helik (literally wet mortar stone) [Cafer Çelebi, fol. 80v] is rubble limestonc, a by-product obtainedduring quarrying works. lt was used in wall cores with Khurasan mortar as a mixture, confined between the twofacings formed by course stone, the seng-i zira [Hasol 1979]. In rubble walls, larger ones were used in facing.For instance, the only stone dispatched from the quarry to the third and fourth madrasas was the seng-i he/ikemployed in their body walls with gallets [Docurncnts 132 and 336]. According to the survey, maximum 50cmloug, 20-23cm wide, and i7cm high stones were used in facing. The dispatch lasted during March i7-April 26,1554, and August 14-19, 1557, along with the dispatch of fıne sand (riyg), lime (kireç, gee), brick (/ug/a), tile(kiremid), and coal (engişt) to construct brick-Iayered rubble walls [Documents 125, and 130- i33]. Because ofits mass, such cubic measurement units as araba, and hami! defined seng-i helik.

The seng-i harpüşte is the copestone block. According to the survey on both enclosures of the mosque, thecopestone blocks are 28- i20cm long, 89cm and 98cm wide and 43cm high. In a register, the given width for theblock is one zira and four thumbs (88cm) [Document 125]. Thus, the zira length in August 1554 must providethe width of the wider copestone blocks and be approximately 84cm. However, no more register allows a precisecross check. Dressed within the specifications of a template produced in the quarry, and dispatched to theconstruction site during March i7-22, i554, one hundred and forty-four copestones were purchased by numberofunits (kıt'a) during July 28-August 3,1554 [Documents 125, and 139].

The seng-i pehlu, literally side stone, is, according to the accounts of the Aynalıkavak Kiosk, Ayazma,Sultanahmet, and Sinan's templates and valorizations in the registers of the Süleymaniye, a fiat, linear block forwindow frames, door jarnbs and pavemerıts [Pakalın 1993, Prime M inister Archives, Cevdet Saray Katalog, no.81 i, Aktuğ Kolay 1995, Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, D. 42, Documents 125-129]. The given dirnensionsin the Süleymaniye registers are one to three ziras (75-227cm) long, one to two ziras (75- i5lcm) wide and fourto eight thumbs (l2.6-25.2cm) thick. Those dimensions are cornpatible with the existing frames and jambs of thecomplex. In the case of Kyzikos, the jamb in marble is referred as söve (jamb) instead of pehlu as in limestone.Twenty-one blocks of pelı/u were ox-carted from the quarry to the construction site during March 17-May 17,1554, while one hundred and thirty-nine blocks were purchased during July 28-August 3,1554, in accordancewith the chiefarchitect's templates and valorizations [Documents 125, 127-129, 137, and 138/a].

The seng-i minare is the step block of the minarets ' spiral stairs, two ziras long, and sixteen thumbs high (I 50 by50cm) [Document 129]. Just like a columrı's superimposed drums, the newels of the minaret stairs were formedby these steps' eireular-planned projeetions [Kulaç 198 I]. Like the seng-i zira, it was defıned by zira. After twotcmplates designed by the ehief arehiteet for either type of minarets had been earted from the quarry duringMarch 24-May 17, 1554, the bloeks were dressed on the eonstruetion site [Documents 127 and 129].

The seng-i kaldırım, a Iimestone pavement plate, was proeured mainly from the state quarry during May 12-17,1554, and then purchased during March 4-9, 1559 [Documents 125, 129, and 142]. Like the seng-i helik, it wasdefıned by araba due to its massy shape. However, sorne thin limestone slabs, doseme-l yujka, were eolleetedfrom Kyzikos on August 26, 1550 [Doeument 84/a].

The seng-i kapak, the block of sewer co ver, was purchased with a total length of 383.5 ziras (290.3m) duringJuly 28-August 3, 1554 [Document 138]. However, the sengol kapak in the Prokonnesian marble refers to latrinebloek that directly sits on the sewer the way the Iimestone sewer covers did.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, available arehival data in the light of a eomprehensive survey throughout the Süleymaniye eomplexgaye the traces upon the Ottoman Iimestone practice at that time. The finds have been verified throughdocumentary eorrclations. Some speeifıe features eneountered during the investigation have been pointed out.The Iimestone elassifieation, and related speeified terminology in the mid sixteenth century, bloek names,

502


characteristics, form, size, dimension, and color as stone type indicator, resources such as ancient ruins,contemporary buildings in which ancient stone fragments were ernployed, and ancient and corıtemporaryquarries, criterions in stone acquisition, approaches to the potential use of spolia, financial aspects, fields of use,purchase year, quantity, costs, and measure units have be en considered. A chart that shows a typology of thelimestone blocks dispatched from the state limestorıe quarry has been presented in this paper.

By synthesizing the scattered bits and pieces of information that our sources have preserved, we may cornecertain conclusions. The tantalizing finds and results of this study could shed light on the further discourses inthe field of the Ottornan building history pursuing the stunning wisdom of the Süleymaniye by Sinan that is stilla marvel, and reserves invaluable knowledge on its every single tell-tale stone.

REFERENCES

Ahmet Efendi, (completed between 1335 and 1337), Tarih-i Cami-i Şerif-i Nur-u Osmani [History ofNuruosmaniye Mosque] Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası ilavesi (Dersaadet: 1918).

Aktuğ Kolay, İ., 1994, 'Ayazma Camisi İnşaat Defterine Göre Yapıda Kullanılan Bezerne ve TefrişatMalzemeleri' [According to Ayazma Mosque Constıııction Book, Decoration and Funıishing Materials Used inBuilding], Celal Esad Arseven Anısına Sanat Tarihi Semineri, Istanbul, pp. 211-217, 82.

Aktuğ Kolay & Çelik, S., 2006, 'Ottoman Stone Acquisition in the mid Sixteenth Century: The SüleymaniyeComplex in Istanbul', Muqarnas 23, 251-272.

Barkan, Ö. L., 1972 and 1979, Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (J 550-155 7) [Construction of SüleymaniyeMosque and Imaret (1550- 1557)],2 vols., Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara.

Borghini, G., 1992, Marmi Anıichi, Rome.

Cafer Çelebi, Risale-i Mimariyye [Treatise on Architecture], Topkapi Palace Museum Archive, no. 339.

Çelik, 2001, Mevcut Belgeler İşığında Süleymaniye Kulliyesinin Yapım Süreci [The Construction Process of theSüleymaniye Complex in the Light of Available Documents], PhD Dissertation, Istanbul Technical University(!TU), Institute of Science and Technology.

Dernschwam, H., 1992, istanbul ve Anadoluya Seyahat Günliiği: (J 553-1555) [Travelog of Istanbul andAnatolia], tran. Yaşar Önen, Mersin, pp. 188.

Erzen, L, 1988, 'Sinan as Anti-Classicist' Muqarnas 5, 70-86.

Gnoli, R., 1988, Marmara Roınana, Rorne,

Hasol, D., i979, 'Helik ', Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sozlüği: [Dictionary of Architecture], Istanbul, pp. 222.

Istanbul Foundations Headquarter Archives.

Kuban, D., 1987, 'The Style of'Sinau's Dorned Structures' Muqarnas 4, 72-97, pp. 84.

Kulaç, Ü., 1981, 'Türk Taş Minarelerinde Döner Merdiven ve Metal Bağlantı Elemanların Yatay YükleriKarşılamadaki İşlevleri' [Spiral Stair in Turkish Masonry M inarets and its Metal Tie Elemerıts ' Funetions inContracting Lateral Forces] 1. International Congress, vol. 3, pp. 235-240, Figure 1-3.

Mango, c., 1995, 'Ancient Spolia in Great Palaee of Constantinople', in Byzanıine East, Latin West: Art-Histarical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weiızmann, ed. C. Moss & K. Kiefer, Princeton, .1.

Mustafa ibn Celal, (completed between 1555 and i567), Tabakat'iil-Memalik ve Derecaı'ül-Mesalik [CategoriesofCountries and Degrees of Professions], Topkapı Palace Museum Library, no. 5997, fol. 473b.

Necipoğlu, G., 1985, 'The Süleymaniye Cornplex in Istanbul An Interpretation' Muqarnas 3, 92-117.

503


Pakalın, M .Z., 1993, 'Pchle", Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü [Dietionary of Ottoman HistoriealIdioms and Tcrms], 3 vols, Milli Egitim Basımevi, Istanbul, vol. 2, pp. 765.

Peynircioğlu H. et al., 1981, 'Istanbul 'da Osmanlı Döneminde Inşa Edilen Camiierin Temelleri', [Foundations ofthe Mosques eonstrueted in Ottonıan Era], i. international Congress on the History ol Turkish-Islamic Scienceand Technology, 5 vols., Istanbul, voL. 3, pp. 37-46, 39-40.

Prime Minister Archives, Cevdet Saray Katalog, no. 8 IL.

Rogers, J.M., 1982, 'The State and the Arts in Ottornan Turkey, Part 1: The Stones of Süleymaniye',international Journal of Middle East Studies 14, 71-86, 'Part 2: The Fumiture and Deeoration of Süleymaniye',283-313.

Saı Mustafa Çelebi, 2002, Yapılar Kitabı, Tezkireıü 'l-Bünyan ve Tezkiretü 'l-Ebniye [Treatise on Buildings] tran.I-L.Develi & S. Rifat, Koçbank, IstanbuL.

Sanderson, 1., 193 I, The Travels ol John Sanderson in the Levant (1584-/602) cd. W. Foster, London, pp. 70-71.

Sayar M. & Erguvanlı, K., 1955, Türkiye Mermerleri ve İnşaat Taşları [Turkish Marbles and Building Stones],Istanbul, pp. 18 and 19.

Seyyid İshak, Ayaznıa Camii İnşaat Defteri [Ayazma Mosque Construetion Book] Topkapı Palaee MuseumArchivcs, no. 1137, The Primo Minister's Archives, N:E:D:K II, 5133.

Topkapı Palaee Museum Archive, D. 42 and D. 43.

Van Millingen, A., 1899, Byzanıine Consıanıinople, London, pp. 316.

Waelkens, M., Herz, N. & Moens, L., 1992, Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance, Leuven.Müllcr-Wiencr, W., 1983. 'Spoliennutzung in Istanbul', in Beiıriige zur Alıerıumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift

fiır Kurt Biııel, ed. R.M. Bochmer & H. Hauptman, Mainz, pp. 369-382.

Ward-Perkins, 1.B., 1992, Marble in Anıiquity: Collected Papers oI1.B. Ward-Perkins, ed. by H. Dodge &Ward-Perkins, London.

Ycrasimos, S., 1993, Kosıanıiniye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri [Istanbul and Hagia Sophia Legends], İletişimYayınları, Istanbul, pp. 248.

_______ , 1995, 'Ayazma Camii İnşaat Defteri' [Ayazma Mosque Construction Book], 9. internationalTurk Arıs Congress, Ankara, voL. I, pp. 79-89.

_____ , 1993, 'Challcrıging the Past: Sinan and the Cornpetitivc Discourse of Early Modern IslarnicArchiteeture' Muqarnas ıO, 169-180.

______ , 2002, Siilevıııanıye. Yapı Kredi Yayınları, IstanbuL.

504

Ottoman Limestone (Küfeki) Typology in the Mid Sixteenth Century

Documents

Transcript of Ottoman Limestone (Küfeki) Typology in the Mid Sixteenth Century