Some Notes on the Muslim Vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki (Selânik)

JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES

TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI VOLUME 40

December 2013

Edited by - Yayınlayanlar

Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

DEFTEROLOGY FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY

Guest Editors Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Editorial Board - Tahrir Heyeti Cem al KAF ADAR • Sel im S . KURU • Günay KUT • Gönül A. T EKİ N

Consulting Editors - Yardımcı Yazı Kurulu

N. AÇIKGÖZ m uğla E. BIRNB AUM toronto M. CANPOL AT ank ara R. DANKOFF chicago C. DİL Çİ N ankara P. FODOR budapest E . HARMANCI kocael i H . İNAL CI K ankara C. KAFADAR cambridge, mass M. KAL PAKLI ankara C . KURNAZ ank ara A. T . KUT istanbul G. KUT ist anbul G . NECİ POĞL U cambridge, mass M. ÖLMEZ ist anbul Z . ÖNLER çanakkale K. RÖHRBORN gött ingen W. THACKSTON, Jr . cambridge, m ass T . TEKİ N ank ara S . T EZCAN ankara Z. T OSKA ist anbul E. TR YJARSKI w arsaw P. ZIEME ber l in


TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI VOLUME 40

December 2013

Edited by Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

DEFTEROLOGY FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY

Guest Editors

Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Published at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations

Harvard University

2013

TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI

JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES CİLT 40

Aralık 2013

Yayınlayanlar Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

DEFTEROLOJİ HEATH LOWRY ARMAĞANI

Yayına Hazırlayanlar Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Harvard Üniversitesi Yakındoğu Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Bölümünde yayınlanmıştır

2013

Copyright © 2013 by the editors All rights reserved

• Bütün telif hakları yayınlayanlara aittir

Managing Editor of


Günay KUT

Composer of the JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES

İbrahim Tekin

Baskı: KİTAP MATBAACILIK

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-131003

ISSN: 0743-0019

Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in

HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS and

AMERICA: HISTORY AND LIFE

Cover design and background • Kapak düzeni By Sinan AKTAŞ

Tughra, Mehemmed II (1481) Aşık Paşa : Garib-nâme (İ. Koyunoğlu Ktp., Konya)

[Cover background] ―ÂŞIK PÂŞÂ (d. 1333): Ġarîb-Nâme (İ. Koyunoğlu Ktp., Konya)

[ve mâ erselnâ min resülin illâ bilisâni kavmihi liyübeyyine lehüm]

(K 14:4 "Onlara apaçık anlatabilsin diye her peygamberi kendi halkının diliyle gönderdik!")

KAMU DİLDE VARİDİ ZABT U USÛL

BUNLARA DÜŞMİŞİDİ CÜMLE ―UKÛL

TÜRK DİLİNE KİMSENE BAKMAZIDI

TÜRKLERE HERGİZ GÖÑÜL AKMAZIDI

TÜRK DAKI BİLMEZİDİ OL DİLLERİ

İNCE YOLI OL ULU MENZİLLERİ

BU GARÎB-NÂME ANIN GELDİ DİLE

KİM BU DİL EHLİ DAKI MA―NÎ BİLE

TÜRK DİLİNDE YA―NÎ MA―NÎ BULALAR

TÜRK Ü TÂCİK CÜMLE YOLDAŞ OLALAR

YOL İÇİNDE BİR BİRİNİ YİRMEYE

DİLE BAKUP MA―NÎYİ HOR GÖRMEYE

TÂ Kİ MAHRÛM OLMAYA TÜRKLER DAKI

TÜRK DİLİNDE AÑLAYALAR OL HAK[K]I Bütün dillerde ifâde şekilleri vardı

Herkes bunlara rağbet ederdi

Türk diline kimsecikler bakmazdı

Türkleri kimseler sevmezdi

Türk ise zâten bilmezdi bu dilleri

İnce ifâde usûllerini, ifâde biçimlerini

İşte Garîb-Nâme bunun için yazıldı

Yalnız Türkçe bilenler de gerçeği anlasınlar diye

Yani Türk dilinde gerçeği bulsunlar

Türklerle İranlılar hep yoldaş olsunlar diye

İfâde hususunda birbirlerini kötülemesinler

Dile bakıp manâyı hor görmesinler diye

Bu suretle Türkler de mahrum olmasınlar

Hakk'ı dillerinde anlasınlar diye

HEATH LOWRY

İÇİNDEKİLER • CONTENTS

TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI 40 2013 JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES 40 2013

Norman ITZKOWITZ, Farewell ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Selim S. KURU, Baki TEZCAN A Life in Ottoman Studies: An Interview with Prof. Heath Lowry ............................................. 5

Heath LOWRY, Publications ............................................................................................................. 53

ARTICLES

Fatma ERKMAN-AKERSON, On the Story of Varqa and Gülşah ............................................................. 67

Caroline FINKEL, With Evliya Çelebi from Alanya to Ermenek: An Initial Exploration of the Central Taurus Stages of His 1671 Pilgrimage Itinerary (October 2012) ................................................................................................................... 97

Haim GERBER, An Early Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Ottoman Caliphate .................... 119

Jane HATHAWAY, Households in the Administration of the Ottoman Empire ....................... 127

Evanghelos HEKIMOGLOU, Some Notes on the Muslim vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki (Selânik) ....................................................................................................................... 151

Colin IMBER, Khāyir Beg: a Bad Man but a Good Thing ............................................................... 169

Raif KAPLANOĞLU,1830 Yılı Nüfus Sayımına Göre Bursa'da Sosyal Yapı ve Kölelik Kurumu ............................................................................................................................. 189

Mustafa KARA, Mısrî Dergâhı Son Şeyhi: Şemseddin Efendi‖nin Bazı Tahmisleri ................... 207

Machiel KIEL, Founding new towns as means of conflict solving: The case of Eğridere Palanka (Kriva Palanka, Rep. of Macedonia) ............................................. 225

Mariya KIPROVSKA, Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland........................... 245

X TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Elias KOLOVOS,The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered Ottoman Salonica in 1430 ................................................................................................................. 271

Selim S. KURU, Gülşehrî, the Seventh Sheikh of the Universe: Authorly Passions in Fourteenth-Century Anatolia ..................................................................... 281

Jacob M. LANDAU, German Academics in Turkish Universities, 1933-1946 ............................. 291

Rena MOLHO, Problems of Incorporating the Holocaust into the Greek Collective Memory: The Case of Thessaloniki ............................................................................... 301

Hedda REINDL-KIEL, Some Notes on Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha, his Family, and his Books .................................................................................................................. 315

Henry R. SHAPIRO, Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate in Early Modern Greek ................... 327

Hülya TAŞ, Erken Modern Osmanlı‖da Sağlık Hizmetleri ............................................................ 353

Gönül TEKİN, Güneş ve Kılıç ............................................................................................................. 373

Baki TEZCAN, Erken Osmanlı Tarih Yazımında Moğol Hatıraları .............................................. 385

Nuran TEZCAN, 18. Yüzyılda Klasik Mesnevide Değişim ve Sürerlik Bağlamında Şeyh Gâlib‖in Hüsn ü Aşk‖ının “ışknâme” Olarak Kurgusu............................................................ 401

Fikret YILMAZ, Barkan‖ın Tarihçiliğinde Fiyat Meselesi ve Süleymaniye İnşaatı ................... 425

SOME NOTES ON THE MUSLIM VAKFS IN OTTOMAN THESSALONIKI (SELÂNIK)

Evanghelos Hekimoglou

Introduction

The Greek-Ottoman Convention of Athens (November 1913) included strong provisions concerning the maintenance of the Muslim vakfs in the territories which were incorporated into the Kingdom of Greece1. According to this convention, Greece recognised any property right which was based on the Ottoman Land Law. The Greek Civil Law was introduced in the "New Lands" (i.e. the former Ottoman lands) with the Law no 147/19142, with the exception the Ottoman Land Law, which remained valid and binding, including the bare ownership of the vakfs on the real estate and the preservation of the vakfs themselves in perpetuity3.

Four years later (August 1917), the central business district of Thessaloniki was devastated in a great fire. A series of laws were issued to enforce a new city plan, with new plots. All the property rights in the burnt zone were declared null and replaced with documents (ktematographa) by which the old owners acquired the right to participate in the auctions for the new plots. Besides, the rights of the vakfs on the real property were converted to contractual obligations of the usufructors (possessors) to the bare owners (i.e. the vaksf)4. That means that (a) the possessor of the burnt property was to be benefited with the ktematographa given by the State, (b) the keeper (muteveli) of each vakf had to sue every possessor of its single estate for a part of the value of the ktematographon. Besides, the dependencies of the mosques which had been turned back to churches were captured by the Christian Community5. The Muslim Community claimed in front of the court that these dependencies had to be recognised as inalienable communal property (but not as a bare

1 Gazette of the Government of the Kingdom of Greece nο 229/14.11.1913; see article 6 (recognition of the right of property produced by Ottoman title deeds or the Ottoman Law; article 11 (the vakfs to be supervised by the muftis); article 12 (the vakfs to be respected and administered by their mutevelis; the ―regime of vakfs‖ (la regime de vakoufs) may not be modified without proper compensation). See also the Protocols of the Convention.

2 The Law was published in the Gazette of the Government of the Kingdom of Greece no A 25/1/2/1914. 3 Ν.Π. Ελετθεπιάδηρ, Τα μεσά σην Στνθήκην σων Αθηνών: Πεπί σων εν σαιρ νέαιρ φώπαιρ εγκασαλελειμένων

κσημάσων, Athens 1915, pp. 3-5. Although a general prohibition to transfer land in the ―New Lands‖ was established in the period 1913-1920, about 3,000 acts of purchasing were committed in the same period; X. A. Κοςςτβά, Νομοθεςία διοικήςεωρ μοτςοτλμανικών και ανσαλλαξίμων ακινήσων, Αθήναι 1928, p. 4.

4 See Law no 1394/1918, published in the Gazette of the Government of the Kingdom of Greece no A 101/9.5.1918, article 11. The vakfs are not mentioned by name; instead, the Law makes notice of two Byzantine terms, i.e. “emphytefsis” (the perpetual right in a piece of land that is the property of another) and “epiphaneia” (the right of A to erect a building on a land that is the property of B and the right of A to use this building as his own property).

5 Although the third protocol of the Convention of Athens put as a general rule that the Muslim communities were the legal proprietors in these cases.


152 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

property of the vakf that the dependency belonged to)6. These efforts were terminated by the exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece.

The Convention concerning the Exchange of Populations (Lausanne, 31.1.1923) recognised the Greek State as the owner of the land property of the vakfs7. Since then, the Greek State has being practicing the bare ownership rights of the vakfs, on the basis of the title deeds of the Ottoman Cadastral Office. In 1970, the bare ownership of the vakfs was converted to a co-property right of one fifth of the plot in favour of the Greek State. The possessors, who still hold an estate on the basis of a tapu, are called to pay the equivalent of 20% of the value of the plot, in order to be officially recognised as definite proprietors8.

The source of the present paper

The source of the present paper is a part of the archive of the City Plan of Thessaloniki, dated 1918-19199. This part concerns the area of the city which was burnt in the fire of 1917. The burnt area covered 120 hectares, divided in 4,100 plots. For the purposes of this study, the data was derived from 1,559 files (out of the mentioned number of 4,100), which had the following qualities: (a) They were readable (i.e. not destroyed), (b) They included translated copies of the Ottoman title deeds. (c) The area of the concerning plots has been measured by the public authorities. Files partly destroyed, either lacking title deeds or details about their area, were omitted.

Three hundred ninety four (394) title deeds of the examined cases recorded clearly property rights on the name of 73 distinct Muslim vakfs. In approximately 1,000 other title deeds, I found latent traces of vakf rights, although they were not clearly recorded. Probably, the rights of the vakfs had been undermined by the possessors of the plots (mutessarifs), who, thanks to the incomplete recording, succeeded in presenting themselves as definite proprietors. Our suspicion gets stronger taking in mind that 73 vakfs is a very poor number comparing to the thousands of the known vakfs in Istanbul10.

6 I found a typed detinue of this kind in the file of the plot 7/1, in the archive named below. 7 Specifically, according to article 1 of the Convention, the Greek State became the owner of the real and

movable property left the Muslims in Greece. The Convention was confirmed by the Greek Law no 4793/1930 and published in the Gazette of the Government no A 226/3.7.1930.

8 Law Degree no 547/1970; Law no 357/1976. The apportionment of the property between the holders of the tesaruf and the rakabe rights on the basis 4:1 respectively was initially used in the Greek Law no 1394/1918, which concerned the erazi-i miriye agrarian lands (article 11).

9 The sources were published in Θάλεια Μανσοπούλοτ-Παναγιψσοπούλοτ & Ετάγγελορ Χεκίμογλοτ, “Κσημασολογικέρ Πηγέρ. Θεςςαλονίκη - σέλη 19οτ, απφέρ 20ού αιώνα”, Volume Β2 in Ιςσοπία σηρ Επιφειπημασικόσησαρ ςση Θεςςαλονίκη, Bussinessmen Cultural Society for Northern Greece, Thessaloniki 2004.

10 In 1546, there were 2,517 vakfs in İstanbul, not counting those controlled by the imperial family. By the year 1600, 1,600 more vakfs had been added; See Conservation as Cultural Survival: Proceedings of Seminar Two

Some Notes on the Muslim Vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki

153 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

The example of the city-block no 38

The city-block no 38 presents a very good example of how the rights of the vakfs faded because of incomplete recording. In the file of this plot there is a translated copy of a title deed of the Ottoman Cadastral (tapu), which erratically recorded the transfer of the land instead of the transfer of the right to use to land (usufruct).

The city-block no 38, with a total area of 548m2, consisted of two plots (38/1 and 38/2). The later title deeds of these two plots read as follows:

Plot 38/1 38/2

Date of the deed 1324 H (25.2.1906/13.2.1907) 1327 H (23.1.1909/12.1.1910)

Description of the property

A house with a shop at the basement

A house with a workshop at the basement, belonging to the vakf of Yakub Paşa

Reason of the issue of the title deed

The right of succession was extended and the yearly rent was paid

A definite transfer of the deed from the old to the new owner

Value 55,000 [kuruş] 48,500 [kuruş]

Icare 12.50 [kuruş]

[Area] [170 m2] [378 m2]

[Relative value] [323 kuruş/m2] [128 kuruş/m2]

Note: Italicised by the author; the data in brackets was compiled by the author.

No vakf is named in the deed of the plot no 38/1 and this gives the impression that the transfer concerns the ownership both of the house and the land. But the expression “the right of succession was extended and the yearly rent was paid” fits rather to a typical title deed issued to extend the right of succession11 in the usufruct of an estate owned by a vakf, than to a title deed issued on the succession in the ownership of the land. Probably, the plot no 38/1 belonged to the mukatalı category, i.e. the land belonged to a vakf and the house belonged as a mülk to the possessor. Besides the original price, the possessor paid a rather

in the Series Architectural Transformations in the Islamic World, held in Istanbul, Turkey, September 26-28, 1978, Ağa Khan Awards, İstanbul 1980, p. 18.

11 The extension of the line of successors was initially recognised by the Law of 2 zilkade 1285.


154 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

symbolic “yearly rent” (yer kerasi) to the vakf.12 This yer kerasi is mentioned in the title deed of the plot no 38/1, in the expression the yearly rent was paid.

If, after the death of the possessor, a mukatalı property was transferred to his heirs (intikal), a sum should be paid to the vakf (tevsi-i intikal) as compensation.13 The reason of the issue of a new title deed in the case of the plot no 38/1 included both yer kerasi and tevsi-i intikal obligations, leaving no doubt that this plot was a mukatalı vakf estate, i.e. the land belonged to the vakf and the building to the possessor.

There is also no doubt that the plot no 38/2 belonged to the icaretlı category, i.e. the vakf had the bare ownership (ownership without usufruct) of both the land and the building, while the possessor held only the usufruct of both the land and the building. The property rights of the Yakub Pasha vakf were clearly recorded in the title deed, including the yearly quasi rent (icare-i müeccele) of 12.50 kuruş.

These elements permit us to reconstruct the history of the city-block no 38, as an estate of the Yakub Paşa vakf. Yakub served as a beylerbey in the times of Bayezid II (r. from 1481 to 1512). In 916 H (1510/11) Yakub founded an imaret, a medrese and a teke in Thessaloniki. He also converted a Christian church (Aya Aikaterini) to a mosque, which was the core of all these activities14. The block no 38 belonged to the vakf founded by Yakub to support his foundations. It was a piece of urban land in a central position, very close to the complex of Talmud Torah, the core of the Jewish community in Thessaloniki. The block no 38 was also adjacent to the flour market (Un Kapan). The area of Un Kapan has been burnt many times since 1510. I presume that in order to secure the rebuilding of the premises and an income from its burnt property, the keepers of the vakf divided the estate no 38 in two plots and sold the right of their use, under the two different legal forms mentioned below, mukatalı and icaretlı respectively.

The large difference in the value of the two plots (323 and 128 kuruş/m2 respectively) is an indication that the buildings of the plot 38/2 were older than the buildings of the plot 38/1. Consequently, the plot 38/1 was sold (as mukatalı) later than the icaretlı plot 38/2.15

It is worth mentioning that the information concerning the rights of the vakf of Yakub Paşa on the plot 38/2 was omitted in the first title deed which was issued under the Greek dominion. In 1916 the possessor of this plot died. His two sons and three daughters, as pretended “proprietors and possessors” of the inherited two-store house, the “plot, the water facilities and the corresponding license” (μοτςαμάδων = müsamaha), sold their property “free of any claim” to a purchaser for 30,000 drachmae.16 They used as proof of

12 Ελετθεπιάδηρ, p. 103. 13 Op. cit, p. 110. 14 B. Δημησπιάδηρ, Τοπογπαυία σηρ Θεςςαλονίκηρ κασά σην εποφή σηρ Τοτπκοκπασίαρ 1430-1912,

Θεςςαλονίκη 1983, pp. 120,303,381, 395. 15 Perhaps the difference may be partially explained by the deviation between the market values of the

former and the later legal form. 16 The equivalent of 120,000 kuruş, comparing to 48,500 kuruş.


155 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

their ownership the already presented “tapu” (sic) of 1908. According to the title deed of 1916, the estate was transferred as a mülk and the rights of the Yakub Paşa vakf were absolutely omitted.

My conclusion is that the disappearance of the property rights of the vakfs must be linked with the poor recording in the title deeds after 1912. A possible explanation comes from a peculiarity in the legal procedure of the transfer of a mukatali property: The Cadastral Office issued two title deeds on every transfer; one title for the land (which belonged to the vakf) and a second one for the mülk buildings on the same land. Consequently, the Cadastral listed two distinct records for one single property and issued two title deeds for this property17. The City Plan archive was formed because hundreds of possessors filed the required documents. If a possessor of a mukatali property had filed only his mülk title (omitting the second title of the vakf), the result would had been the one described in the case of the plot 38/1. Perhaps many possessors omitted filing their “second” titles. As we have seen, the notary public in the case of the transfer of the plot 38/2 ignored the rights of the vakf, which were clearly recorded in the title. It is a matter of guessing what he would have done with a title concerning the mülk buildings, as in the case of the plot 38/1.

The general picture

The 394 studied cases covered a total area of 7.6 ha, out of a total burnt area of 120 ha. Consequently, a minimum 6% of the burnt area carried property rights of the vakfs. The word “minimum” might be stressed for the reasons I have already explained in the previous paragraph.

Although some of these property rights must have been very older, most of the deeds which recorded them were issued a little before or a little after the turning of the 19th to 20th century, a proof that the real property changed hands rather usually.

17 Σουία Τζψπσζακάκη-Τζαπίδοτ, Νομικό καθεςσώρ σων αυιεπωμάσων-βακοτυίων ςσα πλαίςια σοτ οθωμανικού

εμππάγμασοτ δικαίοτ (15ορ-19ορ αι.). PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Law School (1998), http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/10683, pp. 87-88.


156 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Table 1

List of the vakfs mentioned in the examined files

1. Abdul Melek mosque [1]

2. Abdullah Kadi mosque [1]

3. Akçe Mesid mosque [1]

4. Badralı Mustafa Paşa mosque [10]

5. Balaban Zade Ahmed Ağa mosque [8]

6. Bıyıkli Süleyman Ağa mosque [3]

7. Burmalı cami [2]

8. Carikcı Kemal[1]

9. Davud Ağa [10]

10. Derviş Celebi mosque [4]

11. Evkaf [1]

12. Feneri Mehmed Bey [1]

13. Fethulah Bey [1]

14. Fetihye mosque [5]

15. Fukara [5]

16. Gazi Ahmet Bey [5]

17. Gazi Huseyin Bey mosque [5]

18. Gazi Mustafa Paşa [28]

19. Haci Hasan mosque [1]

20. Haci Musa [7]

21. Halil Ağa [24] (hamam founder)

22. Hamza Cavus mosque [3]

23. Hanife hanim [1]

24. Hatice Sultan [2]

25. Hizir Bey mosque [3]

26. Hoca Burhan mosque [7]

27. Hoca Durmus [er. Dursun] mosque [14]

28. Husrev Kethuda [1]


157 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

29. Ibrahim Ağa [2]

30. Ishak Paşa mosque [3]

31. Kadi Kemal mosque [1]

32. Kapicı Mehmed Ağa [2]

33. Kara Haci [2] or Kara Haci Ahmed mosque [1]

34. Kara Hatib [5]

35. Kasimiye mosque [3]

36. Katib Mehmed Bey [5]

37. Kazaz Haci Osman [1]

38. Kazil Hoca Mustafa [1]

39. Koca Kasim Paşa mosque [7]

40. Koca Mustafa Paşa mosque [9]

41. Mağfur Bey [1]

42. Makbul Ibrahim Paşa [30]

43. Medina [5]

44. Mehmed Celebi tekke [1]

45. Mesud Hasan mosque [2]

46. Mevlehane [3]

47. Muid Allaeddin mosque [2]

48. Mustafa cami [1]

49. Numan Paşa mosque [9]

50. Pestimalcılar [1]

51. Piri Mehmed Paşa [5]

52. Pismaniye Cami [7]

53. Popara Zade Huseyin Bey mosque [6]

54. Rabia hanim [2]

55. Radosi Haci Mehmed [1]

56. Receb Celebi [21]

57. Sapuncı Haci Mehmed Ağa [1]

58. Sari Hatib mosque [4]


158 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

59. Serif Mustafa [1]

60. Seyfullah [5]

61. Siamli Bey [1]

62. Sinancik mosque [8]

63. Sufi Mehmed Paşa [1]

64. Süleyman Cami [1]

65. Sultan Bayezid [35]

66. Sultan Mahmud [26]

67. Sulu Paşa [1]

68. Tabakhane [1]

69. Unknown [3]

70. Yahabedin [1]

71. Yakub Paşa [7]

72. Yilan Mermer Mescid [3]

73. Yusuf Paşa cami [1]

The list of the 73 vakfs hides no surprises, because most of them were linked with mosques of Salonika, already known thanks to the older works of Lowry18 and Demetriades.19 What is really interesting is the unequal share of the property between the 73 vakfs, in combination with the spatial dispersion of the properties carrying vakfs rights and the role they played in the urban landscape.

18 H. Lowry, "Portrait of A City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki) In the

Year 1478", Δίπστφα Εσαιπείαρ Βτζανσινών και Μεσαβτζανσινών Μελεσών, vol. 2, Athens 1980-1981, 254-293. Republished in Η. Lowry Jr, Studies in Defterology, Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, (The Isis Press), Istanbul 1992, pp. 65-100.

19 Δημησπιάδηρ, ό.π.


159 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Table 2

The unequal share of the vakf property between the 75 vakfs

Vakfs Number of the plots they held

27 1

29 2-5

11 6-10

8 >10

The inequality is illustrated in Table 2. The combined eight richer vakfs held rights on 186 plots, i.e. half of the plots of the city carrying vakfs rights. These “rich” vakfs were the following: Sultan Bayezid (35 plots), Makbul Ibrahim Paşa (30 plots), Sultan Mahmud II (26 plots), Gazi Mustafa Paşa (28 plots), Halil Ağa (24 plots), Receb Celebi (21 plots), Hoca Durşun (14 plots), Badralı Mustafa Paşa (11 plots).

The spatial distribution

Since the 16th century, the central area of Ottoman Thessaloniki laid out around the intersection of the modern Venizelou with Egnatia Street (the respecting street names of the Ottoman period differed from time to time). The first known mosque (Hamsa Beğ), the bedestan and the caravan sarays were established in this area by the mid-16th century. The two mentioned streets, vertical to each other, are illustrated in Figure 1. Their intersection is pinpointed with a cycle and divides the urban land in four sections. Section I includes the port, some large hane and many central markets. Section IV includes both markets and housing estates. Sections II and IV include mainly housing estates but also shops and workshops. The two vertical lines point the geographical limits between commercial activities and an almost purely residential area to the eastern extreme of the walled city (Section V), where the Christian neighborhoods were located.


160 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

This five-sector pattern will help us to locate the lots for which the vakfs hold property rights.

Figure 1: A spatial pattern of Ottoman Thessaloniki

Table 3

Spatial dispersion of the plots

Section Vakf Plots Area in m2 Examined plots Vakf‖s plots to examined plots

I 70 12,000 402 17%

II 18 6,600 196 9%

III 114 19,900 371 31%

IV 144 21,800 217 66%

V 48 12,000 373 13%

Total 394 72,300 1,559 25%

As the figures at Table 1 show, one out of four examined plots carried real rights of vakfs. But there were serious inter-sectorial differences. In section IV two out of three plots carried real rights of vakfs, compared to one out of three in section III, while the percentage was very low at the rest of the sectors. The explanations for these differences in percentage would be rather convenient tools to understand the urban transformations in Ottoman Selânik.

II II

I I

II II

IV IV V V


161 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

The vakfs of Makbul Ibrahim Paşa and Gazi Mustafa Paşa

The vakf of Makbul Ibrahim Paşa (d. 1536), who served as a grand vizier to Sultan Süleyman (from 1523 to 1536), held real rights on 30 plots including a large one, i.e. no 7/14, at the city-block no 7, which was located opposite to the Beğ Hamam, at the Un Kapan (Flour Market), at section IV. It was a very important site since the 16th century, due to the economic significance of the flour market. Six out of seven bakers registered in the survey of 1500 were located at the neighborhood οf of Abdul Malik, some meters away from the Beğ Hamam.20 At least two Athonite monasteries, Vatopedi and Lavra, had real property in the same neighborhood.21

The city-block no 7, with a total area of 2,200 m2, presents interest for two reasons: (a) The conjunction of heterogeneous real rights on the same land, and (b) the co-existence of distinct vakf forms corresponding to the three basic religious groups of Thessaloniki.

(a) One third of the area of the block was registered as vakf of Makbul Ibrahim Paşa, but the usufruct (tasarruf) of some shops build on this plot was donated to another vakf, named after Abdul Melek. A mosque with this name, already mentioned, was located at the Rogos district and had been demolished before 183522. Consequently, the usufruct of the shops which were situated at the plots of Ibrahim Paşa vakf must had been dedicated to the Abdul Melek mosque before that date. A similar case was registered in the same file, concerning a small plot (no 7/6, area 53m2). The building on this plot consisted of two shops. Half of the bare ownership of these shops belonged to Makbul Ibrahim vakf and the other half to the vakf of Sultan Bayezid II. The usufruct of the shops was made a yedik, which was dedicated to the vakf of Sultan Mahmud23.

(b) It is also very interesting that a large part of the block under question, i.e. the plot no 7/10, was occupied by a commercial building, which belonged to the vakf of the Aya Theodora monastery. It is very possible that the Kapan mosque, not found in the sources examined by Dimitriadis24, was located at the plot 7/1, i.e. next to the plot of Aya Theodora‖s vakf25. Another plot in the same place, i.e. no 7/17, contained a Jewish synagogue, named Etz

20 Ε. Χεκίμογλοτ, «Η οθψμανική πεπίοδορ», in Χ. Παπαςσάθηρ & Ε. Χεκίμογλοτ (ed.), Ιςσοπία σηρ

Επιφειπημασικόσησαρ ςση Θεςςαλονίκη, vol. B1, Bussinessmen Cultural Society for Northern Greece, Thessaloniki 2004, p. 18-19.

21 Τζψπσζακάκη-Τζαπίδη, op. cit. (App. 1, documents of the Vatopedi Monastery dated 1498 and 1595). Ι.Κ. Βαςδπαβέλληρ, “Δύο ανέκδοσα σοτπκικά έγγπαυα πποεπφόμενα εκ σψν μονών σοτ Αγίοτ Όποτρ Λαύπαρ και Βασοπεδίοτ”, Μακεδονικά 12 (1972), pp. 289-290.

22 Δημησπιάδηρ, pp. 345-6. Only two households were registered in the quarter of Abdul Melek in the defter of 1567/8; Melek Delilbasi, “The Via Egnatia and Selânik (Thessalonica) in the 16th century”, The Via Egnatia Under Ottoman Rule, edited by Elizabeth Zachariadou, Rethymnon 1996, 69.

23 Such a dedication was possible, because in mukatalı estates the building was a mülk. Only a mülk could be a subject of dedication.

24 Δημησπιάδηρ, p. 329. 25 A translated copy of the vakfname confirming the rebuilding of the mosque, dated 1840, was found in the

file of the adjacent plot 7/3.


162 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Hayyim, which the oral tradition has that it was the older synagogue of the Greek-speaking Jews26. Practically, the synagogue was a quasi vakf possession, because it could not be sold or transferred in any other way. Last, but not least, some plots of the same city-block were registered as mülks.

A question arises about which the older form of ownership at this area had been and how it changed through the 15th to the 19th centuries, but it is hardly possible to give an answer. For example, which of the two dedications was older, that to the Makbul Ibrahim Paşa vakf or that to Aya Theodora Monastery27? Is it possible that one of these two types of property “swallowed” part of the other?28 The geographical conjuncture of distinct forms of dedication to a mosque, to a monastery and to a synagogue is rather rare in Thessaloniki and constitutes a kind of geographic borderline between the three main religious groups which resided in Thessaloniki from the 15th to the 20th centuries.

Two city-blocks with houses and some shops, situated at the south of Aya Sofya church (V section), are the most interesting between the plots which carried rights of the Ibrahim Paşa vakf. The conversion of this church to a mosque in the year 1523/24 is attributed to Ibrahim Pasha personally, although there is no indication that he visited Thessaloniki at that year.

Gazi Mustafa Paşa (d. 1529), a beylerbey and a vizier, contemporary to Ibrahim, founded the Aya Sofya hamam on a plot adjacent to the church and the mentioned plots of the Ibrahim Paşa vakf.29 The erection of a hamam in the same city-block with Aya Sofya may be linked with the conversion of the church to a mosque and the dedication of the surrounding buildings

26 The oral tradition identified this synagogue with an older one, situated near the Quais and demolished in

the late 19th century; Μπαπούφ Σιμπή, «Πού ακπιβώρ βπιςκόσαν η ςτναγψγή ποτ αναυέπει ο Απόςσολορ Παύλορ;», Μακεδονικόν Ημεπολόγιον (Ν. Συενδόνη) 1966, pp. 56-57. See also, Agada Sel Pesah, published by the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 1970, p. 10.

27 The local Christian tradition has it that the dedication to Aya Theodora was made in the late 18th century. But no act of dedication survived and there is no testimony about it. Besides, a perquisite for the dedication of land to a monastery was that the land was a mülk. It is hardly possible that a plot of almost 800 m2 near the Un Kapan –and close to the properties of the vakf of Ibrahim Paşa- retained the legal form of mülk until the late 18th century. (I believe this tradition was made up in the early 20th century when, in her effort to legitimize her undocumented property, the Christian Community presented witnesses to the court who gave evidence about hypothetical donators and donations. Historical Archive of Macedonia, Archive of the Greek Orthodox Community of Thessaloniki, Minutes of Demogerontia, 1905). On the other hand, according to a record dated 1823, an older Christian communal hospital, i.e. a vakf, was built on a plot which belonged to the vakf of Akçe Mescid (Ι. Βαςδπαβέλληρ, Ιςσοπικά Απφεία Μακεδονίαρ, vol. 1, Thessaloniki 1952, pp. 476-477). The mukatalı form of property would have permitted this kind of complexities not only in the case of the hospital, but also in the case of Aya Theodora hane.

28 Two possible explanations: (a) A part of a middle seize dependency (monastery) of Aya Theodora was confiscated after the fall of the city and later was added to the vakf of Ibrahim; the rest was transformed in a commercial building. (b) The mülk building on a plot of the Ibrahim Paşa mukatalı property was donated to Aya Theodora.

29 Δημησπιάδηρ, p. 418.


163 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

for its maintenance. It is rather possible that Ibrahim and Gazi Mustafa co-operated to create a building complex for the Muslims of Thessaloniki.

Gazi Mustafa Paşa vakf held rights on considerable number of plots, 28 of which were found by the present study. Some of them were situated around the city-block no 7 (adjacent to the Ibrahim vakfs‖s plot). Others were located at the western part of the city-block no 77, at the Salhane area, near the port gate of Thessaloniki. According to an entry in the list of the owners in the burnt area, the synagogue Gerush Sefarad (=Expulsion from Spain), which is considered to be created by the first wave of exiles from Spain,30 was located in the inner part of the aforementioned city-block no 7731. Two more vakfs held rights on the same city-block; they were founded by Gazi Hüseyin Bey and Piri Mehmed Paşa respectively. The former was perhaps a son of Gazi Evrenos and lived in 15th century; the later served as a grand vizier just before Ibrahim (1519-1523).

The location of the first Sefardic synagogue pinpoints the site of the respecting congregation (kehal), which was the first to be founded in Thessaloniki after the dislocation of the Salonikan Jews to Constantinople in 1454.

Populating the city and redistributing the land

With the exception of the Gerush Sefarad, the city-block under discussion was gradually distributed between prominent political figures of the 15th and 16th centuries, i.e. Gazi Hüseyin, Gazi Mustafa and Piri Mehmed, as it was also the case with other adjacent city-blocks (i.e. 81 and 85). But, could it be the case for a broader area of the city? A couple of phrases from Ioannis Anagnostis may explain some aspects of the distribution of the real property after the fall of Thessaloniki (1430):

“…and he [Sultan Murad] told them [his soldiers] the money and slaves which you acquired sufficed for you. I wish to possess the city”32.

So, the first step of Sultan Murad was to take under his possession the land and the buildings. The second step was to distribute his possessions:

“At that time [ca. 1433] he [Sultan Murad] bestowed upon those of his household and officials those monasteries which were larger and more beautiful, and similarly with the houses, that is all that were better than the others as to beauty and size”33.

30 Hispania Judaica: Language, Rome 1980, p. 66. 31 E. Hekimoglou, «The Burnt Synagogues of Thessaloniki; Pinpointing their Location According to Their

Title Deeds (1917)», to be published at the minutes of Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Period 1872-1912 ―Thessaloniki on the Eve of 1912‖, Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki, September 2012.

32 Sp. Vryonis Jr, “The Ottoman Conquest of Thessaloniki in 1430”, in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, edited by Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry, Birmingham / Washington D.C., p. 296.

33 Op. cit., p. 298.


164 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

A little later, after the sürgün of the Muslims from Yenice to Thessaloniki, the unoccupied buildings were given to the new residents. Monasteries and churches either had collapsed or were demolished and their building materials “were incorporated into newer buildings”,34 those of the deported Muslims.

The next hint about the redistribution of the real property in Ottoman Thessaloniki may be found in the belongings of the vakf of Sultan Bayezid II (r. (1481-1512). I found registered rights of this vakf on 35 small plots, which were dispersed all over the five studied sections (I-IV). Judging from the example of the block no 38, this is a clear indication that a larger number of possessors, compared to other vakfs, had managed to get rid of the legal ties to the specific vakf, which must had held many more plots in its original magnitude.

It is very possible that the distribution of the land did not stop at the time of Murad II and Bayezid II, but continued during the regimes of Selim and Süleyman.

The delocation of Askenazim Jews

In 1526 Makbul Ibrahim Paşa delocated 2,500 Jews of Vuda to Ottoman Empire,35 some of them to Thessaloniki.36 Τhe Ashkenazim established their congregation to the north of the Sefardim congregations. According to the findings of the present study, the synagogue of Askenazim Jews was situated at the city-block no 40. This block was situated to the north of Talmud Torah, the central core of the Jewish activities since the mid-16th century, and to the south of the already mentioned city-block no 7, where the large property of Ibrahim Paşa vakf was situated.

It seems that to counterpoise any negative consequences from the establishment of the Jewish sürgün on the development of the Muslim neighborhoods, Ibrahim and the other high officials prepared an extension of the Muslim neighborhoods to the eastern area of Thessaloniki by converting Aya Sofya in a mosque, erecting the public bath and devoting lands to support these charities.

According to a document of 1502, the leaders of the Christian Community sold a small local monastery which was situated at the vicinity of Aya Sofya (then still the metropolitan church) to an Athonite monastery at a very low price, because “it will be against the Great Church [Aya Sofya] if this [the small monastery] pass to the hands of [buyers] not of our people”. This is a strong indication that the Christian population of Aya Sofya felt the

34 Op. cit., p. 299. 35 Raphael Patai, “The” Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp.

162-163. 36 The survey dated 1567 records an Alaman congregation with 239 households in Thessaloniki; Delilbasi, p.

71. The incomplete survey, dated ca. 1500, records a cemaat Alaman with 79 households; Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae, ΧVΙ-ΙΙΙ, (editit et comentarium fecit Bistra A. Cvetkova), "Fragment de registre détaille des habitants de Salonique, datant du début du XVIe s.". Izvori za Bulgarskata Istorija, 16: Turski Izvoru za Bulgarskata Istorija, III (=Faksimileta), Sofijia (Bulgarska Akademija na Naukite), 1972, 383-405.


165 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

pressure of the surrounding Muslims. The analysis of the names of the Muslim residents at the vicinity of Aya Sofya presents a high percentage of first generation converters. Out of 86 Muslims registered in the adjacent neighborhood of Cami-i Atik (Acheiropoiitos) in 1500, 4 were registered as converters and 17 as “liberated slaves”, a proof that they were not born Muslims.37

A new Muslim quarter

The program of Makbul Ibrahim and Gazi Mustafa helped the Muslims to establish at Aya Sofya quarter and succeeded in pushing the Christian population to the north. In the 1567/8 survey –i.e. 44 years after the conversion of Aya Sofya to a mosque and the erection of the Aya Sofya hamam- a Christian quarter named Aya Sofya Cedid made its appearance, resided by just 18 households.38 On the contrary the Muslim population flourished in the same area. Besides the older quarter Camii Atik (38 households), the same source recorded a new Muslim quarter, that of Aya Sofya cami‖i (22 households). To the east of Aya Sofya another developing and populous area emerged at the same time. It was named after its mosque, Akçe Mescid, and was resided by 60 households and 34 unmarried males.39

37 Ε. Χεκίμογλοτ, “Τα υανσάςμασα σψν ―γιών σοτ Αμπνσοτλλάφ‖. Εξιςλαμιςμοί ςση Θεςςαλονίκη κασά σον

16ο αιώνα», Θεςςαλονικέων Πόλιρ 19 (Μάιορ 2006), p. 137 [= «The ghosts of the ―sons of Abdullah‖. Converts to Islam in Thessaloniki during the 16th century»].

38 Delilbasi, p. 69. 39 Op. cit.


166 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Conclusions

[1]

A considerable part of the urban land in Thessaloniki carried unalienable real rights of the 73 detected vakfs. Eight of them were the richer, with more than 10 plots each, and owned collectively 50% of the detected plots.

[2]

The percentage of the plots which carried vakf rights was higher at the area between the Çarşi road and Aya Sofya. Approximately 75% of the examined plots at this area carried real rights of vakfs.

[3]

The vakfs with the greater property were those founded by sultans and prominent political figures of the 15th and 16th centuries.

[4]

In many cases dated at the early 20th century the real rights of the vakfs were omitted from the tapus or at least they were not clearly written. Consequently, there is a difficulty for many plots to be definitely recognized as vakf properties.

[5]

A close examination of the plots which carried rights of the vakfs of Ibrahim Paşa and Gazi Mustafa Paşa reveals that these plots were used as urban policy tools for the establishment of new residents in Thessaloniki.

[6]

The real rights of the vakfs were inherited by the Greek State; at first they were ignored, but since 1976 they have being properly honored.


167 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

The area of Aya Sofya cami and the hamam. Detail from the 1882 city map.

The city-block no 7 and its plots. The red line illustrates the old city plan and the green line the new city plan. Designed by Ellie Gala-Georghila.


168 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

The city-block no 77 and its plots. The red line illustrates the old city plan and the green line the new city plan. Designed by Ellie Gala-Georghila.

Some Notes on the Muslim Vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki (Selânik)

Documents