https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-3703
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Çini-making, which is an Ottoman underglaze ceramics tradition included in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, was used extensively in the monumental architecture of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, including mosques built by the Ottoman sultans and their family members. Iznik tiles reveal undeciphered relationships between Ottoman patronage and monumental architecture, and unwritten architectural rules and norms concerning tile designs. To contribute to the conservation, interpretation, and presentation of the mosque spaces, it is important to understand the tangible and intangible cultural qualities of Iznik tiles. This study examines the cultural qualities of Iznik tiles by analysing the historical and architectural qualities of the five selected sultanic mosques and by integrating the literature and field surveys through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) modelling and database. We aim to analyse and develop an evaluation model to investigate the cultural qualities of Iznik tiles on regional, urban, and architectural scales using GIS.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 UNESCO, “Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee: 11.COM 10.B.34” (Addis Ababa, 2016), https://ich.unesco.org/en/decisions/11.COM/10.B.34.
2 Ara Altun and Belgin Demirsar Arlı, “İznik Tiles”, in İznik throughout History, eds. Işıl Akbaygil, Halil İnalcık and Oktay Aslanapa (Istanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2003), pp. 237–40; Nurhan Atasoy and Julian Raby, İznik seramikleri̇ (London: Alexandria Press, 1989); Neda Darvishi and Sara Narimani, “The Symbolic Role of Tulip and Pomegranate Flowers in the Tiling Art of Iran and Ottoman Türkiye”, Journal of Art and Civilization of the Orient 10/35 (2022): 23–8; Belgin Demirsar Arlı and Ara Altun, eds., Anadolu toprağının hazinesi: Çini osmanlı dönemi (Istanbul: Kale Grubu Kültür Yayınları, 2008); Sitare Turan Bakır, İznik çinileri ve Gülbenkyan Koleksiyonu (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1999).
3 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri̇; Esin Atıl, The Age of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent (New York: National Gallery of Art, 1987); Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (Hong Kong: Princeton University Press, 2005).
4 The sultanic mosques that were selected as main case studies are the Fatih Mosque, the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Atik Valide Mosque, the Yeni Mosque, and the Çinili Mosque, while the case studies selected for comparison are the Sokollu Mehmet Pasha Mosque and the Rüstem Pasha Mosque.
Although the Fatih Mosque was built in the 15th century and was reconstructed in the eighteenth, it is included among the main case studies since the literature reports that the tile panels it contains were produced in the fifteenth century. On this issue, see Semavi Eyice, “Fatih Camii ve Külliyesi”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi (edition date: 1995), https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/fatih-camii-ve-kulliyesi. However, the Sultan Ahmet Mosque, which was built in the seventeenth century, could not be examined because restoration work was ongoing while this manuscript was being prepared, and no site survey could be carried out.
5 Mustafa Ali Gelibolulu, Künhü’l ahbar, No. 3409, cited in Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 115, footnote no. 188.
6 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan.
7 Bakır, İznik çinileri; Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu, “XVI. yy. Osmanlı dönemi yapılarında görülen mimari süsleme programlarında Mimar Sinan'ın katkısı var mıdır?”, Mimarlık 5–6 (1982): 29–36; Şerare Yetkin, “Mimar Sinan’ın eserlerinde çini süsleme düzeni”, in Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan: Yaşadığı Çağ ve Eserleri 1, ed. Sadi Bayram (İstanbul: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1988), pp. 479–98.
8 Selçuk Mülayim, “Mimari kişilik ve çini”, in Anadolu’da Türk devri çini ve seramik sanatı, eds. Gönül Öney and Zehra Çobanlı (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2007), pp.267–78; Yenişehirlioğlu, “Osmanlı dönemi”; Yetkin, “Mimar Sinan’ın”.
9 Mülayim, “Mimari kişilik”.
10 Gönül Öney, Türk çini sanatı (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1976).
11 Bakır, İznik çinileri ve Gülbenkyan Koleksiyonu.
12 Bakır, İznik çinileri; Yenişehirlioğlu, “Osmanlı dönemi”.
13 Tiles with patterns that can be placed side by side and on top of each other to organise space in multiple ways.
14 Bakır, İznik çinileri.
15 Heath W. Lowry, “Gezginlerin gözünden ve idari kayıtlardaki bilgilerin ışığında Osmanlı döneminde İznik, 1331–1923”, in Tarih boyunca İznik, eds. Işıl Akbaygil, Halil İnalcık and Oktay Aslanapa (Istanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2004), pp. 135–74. Necipoğlu states that tiles produced in Istanbul and Iznik in the first half of the sixteenth century had similarities in terms of technique and decoration; see Gülru Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change of Taste in Sixteenth Century Ceramic Tiles”, Muqarnas 7 (1990): 141–52.
16 Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid”.
17 Faik Kırımlı, “İstanbul çiniciliği”, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 11 (1981): 95–110, p. 104.
18 Kırımlı, “İstanbul çiniciliği”; Lowry, “Gezginlerin gözünden”.
19 Lowry, “Gezginlerin gözünden”; Ahmet Refik, “İznik çinileri”, Darülfünun Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuası 8 (1932): 36–53.
20 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri̇; Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan; François, “Des potiers de Nicée aux faïenciers d’Iznik: Tradition maintenue ou fausse continuité?”, in The Material and the Ideal, eds. Anthony Cutler and Arietta Papaconstantinou (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 177–87; Refik, “İznik çinileri”.
21 François, “Des potiers de Nicée”; Lowry, “Gezginlerin gözünden”.
22 The name Ehl-i Hiref was used not only for palace artists but also for tradesmen engaged in arts and professions in society, as discussed by Süleyman Kırımtayıf, “15. ve 19. yüzyıllar arasında Osmanlı saray sanatı teşkilatı”, PhD diss., Istanbul Technical University, 1996.
23 Kırımlı, “İstanbul çiniciliği”, 101. In the record books containing the names and wages of the çini-making masters working in the nakkaşhane in the Ottoman palace, one master and 11 apprentices were recorded in 1526, four masters in 1558, three masters in 1566 and two masters at the beginning of the seventeenth century. See also Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri̇.
24 It was determined from the imperial decree dated 1593 that there was a chief çini-making master named Osman Efendi in Iznik; see Kırımtayıf, “15. ve 19. yüzyıllar arasında”.
25 Ibid.
26 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri̇; Atıl, Age of Sultan Süleyman.
27 Atıl, Age of Sultan Süleyman, 241.
28 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri̇; Kırımlı, “İstanbul çiniciliği”.
29 Atıl, Age of Sultan Süleyman; Doğan Kuban, Sinan’ın sanatı ve Selimiye (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998); Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan.
30 Mülayim, “Mimari kişilik”.
31 Gülru Necipoğlu, “Sinan çağında mimarlık kültürü ve adab: Günümüze yönelik yorumlar”, in Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’nin hâtırasına Osmanlı mimarlık kültürü, eds. Hatice Aynur and A. Hilal Uğurlu (İstanbul: Kubbealtı Yayınevi, 2016), pp. 19–66.
32 Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, “The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminönü”, Muqarnas 15/1 (1998): 58–70; eadem, Hadice Turhan Sultan: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda kadın baniler (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2009).
33 H. Gökçen Akgün and Ali Türk. “Determination and Analysis of Site Selection Factors for Külliyes of Architect Sinan with Respect to the Locations in the Ottoman City of Istanbul”, Building and Environment 43/5 (2008): 720–35; Necipoğlu, “Sinan çağında”.
34 Sultanic mosques functioned as entertainment areas where carousels and swings were set up during festivals as well as commercial areas where tradesmen made sales; they were also places where people took refuge and used for shelter, especially in disasters such as fires, as discussed in Hilal Uğurlu, “İstanbul halkının günlük hayatında selâtin camilerinin yeri: Avlular üzerinden bir okuma”, in Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’nin hâtırasına Osmanlı mimarlık kültürü, eds. Hatice Aynur and A. Hilal Uğurlu (İstanbul: Kubbealtı Yayınevi, 2016), pp. 257–71.
35 Ibid., 271.
36 Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change of Taste in Sixteenth Century Ceramic Tiles”, 142; Atasoy and Raby, İznik Seramikleri̇, 102; Arthur Lane, “The Ottoman Pottery of Isnik”, Ars Orientalis 2 (1957): 255.
37 Atasoy and Raby, İznik Seramikleri̇; Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire.
38 Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change of Taste in Sixteenth Century Ceramic Tiles”, 136.
39 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri, 220.
40 Michael D. Willis, “Tiles from the Mosque of Rüstem Paşa in Istanbul”, Artibus Asiae (1987): 278–84.
41 Atasoy and Raby, İznik seramikleri, 278.
42 Oktay Aslanapa, Şerare Yetkin and Ara Altun, İznik çini fırınları kazısı. II. dönem 1981–1988 (Istanbul: Tarihi Araştırmalar ve Dökümantasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Geliştirme Vakfı, 1989).
43 Necati Ayaş, “İznik çini fırınları kurtarma kazısı I”, Anadolu/Anatolia XX 1976/1977 (1984): 161.
44 Belgin Demirsar Arlı, “İznik çini fırınları kazı buluntularından çini örneklerin değerlendirilmesi”, Journal of History Culture and Art Research (2018) 7/1: 578–94.
45 Belgin Demirsar Arlı, “İznik çini fırınları kazısı 2018 yılı çalışmaları”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 41 (2019): 357–72.
46 Rohit Jigyasu, “The Intangible Dimension of Urban Heritage”, in Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage, eds. Francesco Bandarin and Ron van Oers (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2015), pp. 129–44; Öcal Oğuz, “Folklor ve kültürel mekân”, Millî Folklor 19/76 (2007): 30–2; UNESCO, “Somut olmayan kültürel mirasın korunması Sözleşmesi”, Paris, 17 October 2003, https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/00009-TR-PDF.pdf.
47 Maurizio Boriani, Alberta Cazzani and Mariacristina Giambruno, “The Naviglio of Martesana: A GIS to Manage a Protected Area”, in Proceedings of the XX CIPA International Symposium, September 2005 (Turin: CIPA, 2005); Sıtkı Külür and Hakan Şahi̇n, “3D Cultural Heritage Documentation Using Data from Different Sources”, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 37/B5 (2008): 353–6; Deniz Arca, D. Zafer Seker, Mehmet Alkan, Serkan Karakış, Çağlar Bayık and Hayrettin Acar, “Development of a GIS-Based Information and Management System for Cultural Heritage Site: Case Study of Safranbolu”, in Proceedings of the FIG Congress (Sydney: 2010): 1-10.
48 Thys-Şenocak, Hadice Turhan Sultan, 240.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Doğan Kuban, İstanbul: Bir kent tarihi (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2004); Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan.
53 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan.
54 Doğan Kuban, “An Ottoman Building Complex of the Sixteenth Century: The Sokollu Mosque and Its Dependencies in Istanbul”, Ars Orientalis 7 (1968): 19–39.
55 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan.
56 Sitare Turan Bakır, “Osmanlı sanatında bir zirve İznik çini ve seramikleri”, in Anadolu’da Türk devri çini ve seramik sanatı, eds. Gönül Öney and Zehra Çobanlı (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2007), pp. 279–305.
57 Kuban, “Ottoman Building Complex”.
58 In the interior of the Atik Valide and Süleymaniye Mosques designed by Mimar Sinan, no tiles were used on the mihrab wall, except for the tops of the windows; however, the mihrab surround was intensively decorated with tiles (Figure 7). This made the marble mihrab stand out in all its splendour. See also Yetkin, “Mimar Sinan’ın”.
59 Jale Erzen, “Stylistic Evolution of Ottoman Mosque Facades in Sinan’s Era”, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 7/2 (1986): 105–26, p. 109; Suzan Esirgen and Önder Aydın, “Moldings on Facades until the End of the Classic Period in Ottoman Architecture”, Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning 10/2 (2022): 219–34, p. 232.
60 Only in the Yeni Mosque was a square-shaped tile used as an upper-level band in the top row of tiles.
61 Unlike the other mosques, it was observed that yellow was dominant in the tiles of the Fatih Mosque.
62 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when standardised tile production resulted in square and rectangular tiles, it was difficult to use standardised tiles on curvilinear surfaces such as the dome and transition elements to the dome. However, this application difficulty was solved by drilling the tile in the middle and nailing it with a broad-headed nail, as can be seen in the tile revetments on the pendentives in the Sokollu Mehmet Pasha Mosque.