KAWAMOTO Satoshi / 川本智史 A Study on the Formation of the Early Ottoman Palaces (in Japanese) Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 2013. 前期オスマン朝の宮殿建築の展開に関する研究 - 儀礼空間の形成を中心に- 東京大学大学院工学系研究科 2013 年 Summary T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n a i m s t o historicize the formation of the Ottoman palace from the fourteenth to sixteenth century. Firstly, the remodeling process of palatial architecture in the early fifteenth century is scrutinized in comparison with the prior examples, including those from the pre-ottoman period Anatolia. This attempt demonstrates the establishment of the colonnaded courtyard in Edirne as a new significant ceremonial space. Secondly, taking the courtyard as a starting point, the construction of palaces in Istanbul and their functions are analyzed to develop an overview of Ottoman palaces of this period. Compared to palaces in the other parts of the world, the history of Ottoman or so-called Turkish palace has been a relatively minor topic within the framework of architectural history. While extravagant mosques or luxurious bazaars have always been objects of academic study, few of the pre-modern Ottoman palaces have physically remained and thus drawn less scholarly attention, with the notable exception of Topkapı Palace. The scarcity of both textual and visual documents is also an obstacle for the understanding of these lost heritages. As a result, the overall image of the pre-modern Ottoman palace is largely derived from what is known about Topkapı Palace. With many cases little known even to modern scholars, its predecessors have never been fully evaluated, nor of course been given a place in the history of the Ottoman palace. Mehmed II s construction of Topkapı Palace in the latter half of the fifteenth century is often regarded as a watershed in the historical development of the palace type, a seemingly new style invented by the great empire builder. My first goal was to find and interpret every document, however fragmental, that describes the least studied palaces in order to construct a genealogy of the Early-Ottoman palace, escaping from the myth of the sui generis Topkapı Palace. This process resulted in Edirne Old Palace emerging as the prototype of Topkapı Palace with a vast ceremonial courtyard. In the later part of dissertation, 191
fo c u s i n g o n t h e ex i st e n c e o f t h e ceremonial courtyard, the diversity of Ottoman palaces is explored. After the conquest of 1453, numerous palaces had been constructed in Istanbul and other major cities. While the palaces with a ceremonial courtyard tended to be the principal palaces designated for political and governmental activities in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, those without a ceremonial courtyard served other functions. The other aim of this dissertation is to characterize and categorize such diverse palaces, taking Istanbul Old Palace, Üsküdar Palace and Davud Paşa Palace as examples of certain other types. These case studies demonstrate how the Ottomans had ingeniously developed these facilities for different purposes. The introductory chapter provides an outline of research on Ottoman architectural and urban history up to the present. Since the 1980s, the traditional morphological analysis of individual monuments has been gradually replaced by a more historical approach that relies on a variety of types of documents. The history of architecture is no longer an isolated realm, as researchers have started to cooperate with other academic fields such as social or political history. Chapter 1 deals with the royal court and palaces of the Rum Seljuk dynasty in the thirteenth century. There is a tendency to associate the pre-ottoman palaces with the Ottoman ones in terms of Turkishness and nomadism, in which one can easily recognize the influence of modern nationalist discourse. These subjective and frankly unacademic views cannot be accepted at face value. In order to clarify the features of the Early-Ottoman palaces, this chapter prelusively examines the pre-ottoman period, through a study of contemporary Persian chronology written by Ibn-i Bibi. From this source, we learn about the mobility and multi-capital system of the Rum Seljuk court. It preferred to remain in the verdant suburbs of central Anatolian cities such as Konya or Kayseri during the summer if not engaged in warfare, and moved to the warmer Mediterranean region for the winter. The example of the palace on the shores of Lake Beyşehir indicates that the complex was formed from several pavilions built loosely within a vast garden, which clearly followed the principals of the Turco-Mongolian tradition. Meanwhile, the vast ceremonial courtyard, which would become the main feature of later Ottoman palaces, did not exist in this period. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence AJAMES no.30-1 2014 192
of Edirne Old Palace and its importance in the history of pre-modern Ottoman palace. First, the approximate date of the relocation of capital-city functions from the old capital Bursa to Edirne is determined by analyzing the location of successive sultans through several Ottoman chronicles. It was likely in the beginning of the fifteenth century when the capital-city functions were relocated to Edirne, after the catastrophic defeat at Ankara and subsequent Ottoman interregnum. Built around the same period by Mehmed I, the eventual winner of the civil war, Edirne Old Palace had become the new governmental focal point for the nascent empire. The next step is to analyze the spatial features of Edirne Old Palace. Although the palace itself does not remain, we have two European travelers descriptions of the palace during the reign of Murad II. The report of the Burgandian pilgrim Bertrandon de la Broquière who visited Edirne in 1433 and was received in audience, depicts the palace and ceremony in detail. The palace complex was surrounded by a wall and contained a ceremonial courtyard which he describes as the site of his audience and banquet with the sultan. The throne of sultan was arranged under a gate which lead toward the private quarter. The advent of the ceremonial courtyard, such as that at Topkapı Palace later, was the first step for the Ottoman palace away from the traditional Turco-Mongolian mode of ceremony in the garden-pavilion palace. Chapter 3 turns to the location of sultans during the period after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, in order to shed light upon the Ottoman sense of the capital. As the sultans usually waged war in the summer time, the places where they wintered possessed the administrative functions as sedentary centers of government. Although Istanbul was proclaimed the seat of government by the conqueror Mehmet II, he himself did not permanently settle there until 1457, mostly remaining in Edirne in the interim. Thus, the Ottoman court seems to have not abandoned its old capital completely. Contrary to the common belief that the sojourn in Edirne was for recreational hunting, the city remained maintained as a sub-capital of the dynasty, as Venetian documents from the sixteenth century attest to continuous diplomatic activities at the court in Edirne. Along with the importance of Edirne as a sub-capital, sultans frequent stays in the pastoral suburbs of both Istanbul and Edirne implies a tradition 193
that was inherited from the preceding Turco-Mongolian dynasties, and that the new palace in Istanbul, Topkapı Palace, was not always the permanent residence. Chapter 4 br ief ly descr ibes Topkapı Palace and the ceremonies held there. This provides the context necessary to evaluate Edirne Old Palace, and Istanbul Old Palace in the next chapter. Chapter 5 proposes a schematic plan of the initial Istanbul Old Palace in the 1450s based on analyses of contemporary textual and pictorial documents. Soon after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II commenced the construction of an immense palace in the center of city. The early stage of this palace, which came to be known as Istanbul Old Palace after the erection of Topkapı Palace, is largely unknown due to continuous alterations and its eventual demolition. According to the conventional view, Istanbul Old Palace had been the first sultanic palace in Istanbul but for some reason Mehmed II soon commissioned to construct Topkapı Palace and the former was dedicated to the harem. Gülru Necipoğlu characterizes Topkapı Palace as a brand-new style, a manifestation of Mehmed II s imperial idea and new ceremonial cords, for which the older palace was unsuited. However, as emphasized in the previous chapter, two palaces in Edirne built before 1453 anticipated Topkapı Palace both in spatial and ceremonial aspects. Since the core elements had already been established in Edirne, Necipoğlu s assumption is rather disputable. This leaves the question of why the sultan did not build Istanbul Old Palace for long-term use from the outset. A bird s-eye view of Istanbul by Vavassore and a miniature by Matrakçı Nasuh are of great impor tance to producing a conclusive answer to this question. Both depict Istanbul Old Palace as an encircled garden with a small closed complex inside and without the courtyard as in Topkapı Palace. Thus, unlike its predecessors in Edirne, it seems likely that Istanbul Old Palace was not vested with a ceremonial stage. Textual documents also corroborate the absence of courtyard in Istanbul Old Palace as well as the lack of ceremonial and political functions. The fact that only two Europeans, enslaved Italian courtiers, ever documented the interior of the palace indicates that foreign delegates likely never had occasion to visit there. Furthermore, according to Neşri, People of Porte (Kapıhalkı), the core of the dynasty, were transferred from Edirne to Istanbul only after the completion of Topkapı Palace, not to the older palace. AJAMES no.30-1 2014 194
In sum, Istanbul Old Palace never became a center of governance. It was a palace, instead, only to accommodate the functions of inner court, including the royal harem, since its foundation. While this may have been similar to other harem palaces in Dimetoka or Bursa, Topkapı Palace was the first political palace in Istanbul with an outer court section. Chapter 6 discusses the suburban villas and gardens of Istanbul which are usually interpreted as recreational sites of sultans and their family. However, through analysis of Ottoman chronicles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, two palaces, namely Üsküdar Palace on the Asian side and Davud Paşa Palace on the European side, turned out to represent significant stages of Ottoman politics in the capital. Both were furnished with a council hall for the occasional audience with vezirs following the manner of Topkapı Palace. Furthermore, a vast field accompanied each palace, where feasts were held for townsmen and soldiers before the departure of military campaigns. I n t h e e n d, I wo u l d l i ke t o underline two conclusions. Firstly, it appears clear that the image of Topkapı Palace as the first and foremost Ottoman palace should be modified in light of the significance of Edirne Old Palace. The most important element of Topkapı Palace, the form of ceremonial court, had already been established prior to its construction at Edirne Old Palace along with its basic ceremonial protocols. Secondly, it seems necessary to pay far more attention to the functional and spatial variety of pre-ottoman palaces. As discussed in each chapter, Istanbul Old Palace was designed for the inner court, while some suburban gardens were used for festivities. Further, individual studies on the pre-modern Ottoman palaces are needed to more deeply understand them as complexes designed specifically for certain purposes and functions. Reseach Fellow (PD), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 日本学術振興会特別研究員 (PD) 195