by Grigor Boykov

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

I was told about this site by Stephen Lewis back in 2004 when we first met on a Machiel Kiel-organized trip in Central Anatolia. According to Lewis the tomb of Ali Baba, a single photo of which he published in the Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies in 2001 (sarcastically no longer available online), is located near today’s village of Stambolovo (Ott.  Eller) in the region of Haskovo (Ott. Hasköy) and was kind enough to offer directions how to get to the spot. On the other hand Kiel also recalled visiting a certain tomb of Ali Baba in the area, but he could neither confirm the location nor could he indentify it as identical with the photo published by Lewis.

The building grabbed the attention of both Mariya and me, so we tried to find it in the first possible moment when we got to the area in 2005. The tomb is not near Stambolovo, as Lewis remembered, but one needs to cross the village and continue driving eastward for another 2 km, where a minor road runs to the northeast until it reaches Kralevo (Ott. Kavak mahalle) after 1,5 km. Crossing Kralevo one must follow the road for another 2 km when just before reaching the intersection linking the villages Koren and Maluk Izvor, the tomb of Ali Baba is seen on the left (northwest) side of the road. The local Bulgarian Christians know the place as “tekyata”, which is a Bulgarized dialect form for the Turkish “tekke”.

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

The mausoleum (türbe) of Ali Baba, which apparently was once a part of a dervish convent, sits on a small hill in a wide open plain. The building consists of a seven sided structure above the sarcophagus of the saint, accessed through a short porch, both covered by tiled roofs. The main heptagonal room which seems to be preserved in its original shape was built by several consecutive layers of roughly cut stone followed by three rows of bricks, which gives the structure a lovely appearance. The single window cut in one of the walls looks like a later addition, while bits of ancient marble spolia were walled in the original building. The porch is a lower rectangular room, which was built from a similar roughly cut local stone, having one small window. Lacking brick layers the porch is likely to have been added in later times, the main seven sided mausoleum dates probably from the early seventeenth century.

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

There is no dedicatory inscription nor there is any information regarding the person who built the mausoleum, but he must have also contributed for the construction of the nowadays vanished convent. The patron saint Ali Baba, however, is mentioned by the seventeenth-century travelogue of Evliya Çelebi. According to Evliya Ali Baba was a disciple of the influential Otman Baba and by the time he visited the place, the convent had between 20 and 30 dervishes (abdals), who wore seven sided felt hats. The convent did not have a pious foundation (vakf) supporting it and all the dervishes relied solely on God’s mercy for their livelihood. Evliya points that despite this fact, because of the constant donations received on a daily basis, the dervishes were not in shortage of anything but could also shelter and feed the travelers.

These remarks left by Evliya Çelebi seem to be trustworthy. It is hard to say whether Ali Baba indeed was a disciple of Otman Baba, but the links between the two convents are more than apparent. Imitating the mausoleum of Otman Baba, Ali Baba’s türbe had a rather unusual shape – seven instead of the typical for such buildings eight sides, which certainly points to a non-Sunni symbolism. The close proximity of the two sites, less than 20 km from one another, and the apparent similarity between the way of living and maintenance of the dervishes in the two convents, also strongly suggests a possible connection. A brief look at the archival records of pious foundations in the area indeed, as claimed by Evliya, shows that there is no vakf of Ali Baba’s convent.

photo: G. Boykov, 2008

In case Ali Baba was truly a disciple of Otman Baba then he must have lived at the turn of the fifteenth up to the mid-sixteenth century. His mausoleum, in the shape it could be seen today must have been a later deed of an unknown benefactor.

by Grigor Boykov

The Restoration 2006-2008

The main Friday mosque of what once used to be the Ottoman town of Filibe still dominates the urban core of today’s Plovdiv, being one of the most outstanding landmarks of the modern city. In the years 2006-2008 after a long delay (80 years) the building finally saw some repair work,

which fixed the numerous cracks covering most of its domes, vaults and walls, stabilized the structure and redesigned the internal space and mural paintings. The restorers’ team who came from Istanbul did extremely good job in not only preventing the inevitable collapse of one of the largest Ottoman monuments in the Balkans (outside Turkey), but also managed to bring its exterior and interior into somewhat more original appearance. For instance the upper part of its minaret, which prior the restoration, as a consequence of a quick fix following the great 1928 earthquake remained for almost 80 years wholly painted in white, was built anew imitating the red and white stripes seen on the old photographs. The walls were cleaned and stripped off small additions attached over the time, while the cracks threatening the collapse of the domes were fixed and the entire lead covering of the roof was also replaced.

The early twentieth-century concrete-made pool inside the mosque was removed as were also two layers of mural paintings while the earliest found layer dating from the eighteenth century was recovered and restored.  Thus, today the mosque looks in excellent shape and it probably needs another decade or so for the time to do its job giving the great building a perfect oldish look.

The end of restoration work was marked by a symposium, jointly organized by Istanbul and Plovdiv’s Municipalities that took place in Plovdiv in June 2008 (program). Recently the papers were printed in a single volume sponsored by the Municipality of Istanbul that is only to be distributed free of charge and probably will never appear in the bookstores. This unfortunate decision of the publishers will most likely turn the only existing book on Muradiye (Cumaya) Mosque of Plovdiv into a rare publication, present on the shelves of various public offices in Bulgaria and Turkey, but unavailable to scholarly community and little known too. Despite that, the common effort put by Bulgarian and Turkish specialists in restoring the endangered monument and in organizing a scholarly event that discussed a number of aspects of Muradiye’s history and architectural features undoubtedly deserves appreciation.

What comes as a real surprise is the fact that all papers given at the conference, with only one notable exception, regard Muradiye mosque as a product of the fourteenth century and attribute its construction to the Ottoman sultan Murad I (1362-1389), most adding that it was found as a part of a complex (külliye) that included the nearby bath, bedesten, and the great caravanserai.

Muradiye, but of which Murad?

The unanimity of most papers mentioned above in pointing Murad I as patron of Muradiye (Cumaya) mosque in Plovdiv results from a rather uncritical usage of long lasting scholarly tradition in Bulgaria and Turkey and could hardly be called surprising. However, it appears that the sole argument in favor of choosing a rather very early date (1364) for the mosque’s construction, thus making it the oldest standing Ottoman monument in the Balkans is a single remark left by the seventeenth-century Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi, according to whose account the great mosque of Filibe was built by “the conqueror of Edirne Gazi Hüdavendigâr”. Containing important and often unique information Evliya’s travelogue is a no

doubt a significant source, the uncritical approach towards his writings, accepting at a face value every statement he made, however, could be terribly misleading especially when keeping in mind that recent studies discover more and more instances in which the traveler was misinformed or simply allowed his imagination to cheer up the narrative. Needless to say arguing on any building’s construction date, based on a single remark left three centuries after the proposed date, while disregarding its architecture and data from archival sources, seems more than disturbing, especially because both documentary evidence and architectural features rather bespeak of a later date for Muradiye (Cumaya) mosque’s construction. Then the logical question one may ask is – was there a mosque in Plovdiv built by Murad I or Evliya’s statement was entirely fictitious? As oddly it may seem, it appears that Evliya could have gone both wrong and correct in his travelogue and his note could reflect an earlier reality. Wrong – because he attributed the patronage of Muradiye mosque to Murad I, while certainly it was built by his great-grand son Murad II, but also correct because it is highly likely that a public building, most likely a mosque, dating back to the time of Murad I was indeed built in Plovdiv.

Church beneath the Mosque ?

There is yet another theory as for the foundation of Muradiye (Cumaya) mosque, which deserves a word here, because it seems to have received equal acceptance in the works of both local history enthusiasts and serious scholarly publications in Bulgaria for more than a century already. According to the theory, likewise often cited as a settled fact, when the Ottoman sultan Murad I conquered Plovdiv (sic!) he decided to convert or rather to built new mosque on the spot of the city’s cathedral St. Petka. Thus, the church built by the Bulgarian king Yoan II Assen (1218-1241) was walled into the new mosque of Plovdiv’s conqueror. It is noteworthy that while agreeing on the early date of construction (1364) proposed by the Turkish historiography, the Bulgarian version adds a curious detail which according to the authors originates from the local oral lore – a source of even lesser reliability than the account of Evliya Çelebi.

Postcard 1900s

Leaving aside the fact that the factual existence of St. Petka Church was never proven, the recent restoration of Muradiye could offer priceless information confirming or disregarding the theory for the existence of earlier structure beneath Muradiye’s foundations.  The need for stabilizing the building and minimizing the damage caused by underground waters made the restorers to dig a trench along the walls of the mosque until the foundation was reached, both from the outside and inside,  which allowed them to lay a proper drainage and inject concrete stabilizing the foundations. The same thing was repeated around the four massive pillars supporting the roof, thus uncovering and fixing all supporting elements of the mosque. The rescue effort, moreover allowed a look on the parts of the mosque buried underground for many centuries, which on the other hand could have offered an answer to the question – was there an earlier structure under the foundations of Muradiye? The results showed that there was no other pre-Ottoman or early Ottoman structure on whose foundations Maradiye was laid, since deep underground the restorers found nothing but the original mosque foundations. It seems that Muradiye was built on an empty spot, or at least at a place where no earlier massive structure stood. This fact alone must be sufficient in illustrating that relaying solely on local folklore, which is by far from being an accurate source, one could come to misleading conclusions, which when repeated continuously overtime could turn into a “historiographic tradition”, but would not actually make the statement more accurate.

Muradiye 1900s - courtesy of Mr. Vladimir Baltchev

Post-Conquest Philippopolis (Filibe)

The city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv) surrendered to the forces led by Lala Şahin Pasha, the commander in chief (beylerbeyi – lit. the lord of the lords) of sultan Murad I, supposedly in 1364. We know very little of the first years of Philippopolis’s (renamed to Filibe) history under Ottoman rule. The Ottoman narrative tradition asserts that after the conquest of the city Lala Şahin chose it for a place of residence from where during the following years he continued raiding the enemy territory, taking control over several important strongholds among which the Trayan’s Gate, blocking the access to the plane of Sofia, the metallurgical center of Samakov and the present-day Bulgarian capital Sofia.

Muradiye interior 1940s

The narrative tradition also attributes to Lala Şahin Pasha the construction of a large wooden bridge over the Maritsa River, thus facilitating trade and especially his incursions further on the “medieval Balkans’ highway” – the Roman Via Militaris Road. Ottoman chronicles do not mention any other buildings patronized by Lala Şahin during his twenty-year term in Filibe, which finished with his death in the 1380s.

Given the Ottoman experience in other major Byzantine cities like Prousa (Bursa), Nicaea (İznik) or Adrianople (Edirne) in which the Ottoman rulers not only converted the main churches into mosques in order to face the immediate needs of the Muslim community and to demonstrate the victory of Islam, but also almost simultaneously began to built on their own, I would think that it is very likely that the newly conquered Filibe must have seen a similar development while in the hands of Lala Şahin.

Muradiye interior after restoration - G. Boykov 2010

This argument could be better sustained when one looks at the changes that took place after the Ottoman conquest of the towns along the other major road in the Balkans the Via Egnatia Road.  The Ottoman advance there was entrusted to Evrenos Bey – a commander of similar to Lala Şahin’s prominence, who took under control most of the sizeable towns in the area. However, apart for his military exploits Evrenos Bey was also known to have been a generous patron who built a number of public buildings in the places under his control, leaving behind the earliest standing today Ottoman monument in the Balkans – his imaret in Komotini (Greece). Deriving analogy from the acts of the early Ottoman sultans and commanders of similar to Lala Şahin importance and magnitude, such as Gazi Evrenos or Paşa Yiğit Bey, the master of Skopje, one may assume that the conqueror and governor of Filibe must also have had built the first Muslim buildings in the city in which he resided.

Philippopolis surrendered to Lala Şahin without resistance, which assured the right of the Christians to remain intact in their previous neighborhoods, even in the ones enclosed within the walls of the citadel, which by the time of the conquest seems to have been the only functioning fortification of the Byzantino-Slavic city. One may assume that Lala Şahin and most likely also a group of his closest military companions settled within the walled part of the city, i.e. the citadel, where he might have, but also might have not, converted an old church into a mosque in order to serve him and his entourage. The greater portion of Lala Şahin’s retinues and all accompanying them servants and artisans, however, must have settled outside the walled stronghold where no inhabited Christian neighborhood existed. It is then plausible to assume that providing for the everyday needs of this Muslim community Lala Şahin or maybe Murad I have built at least two buildings which had to face the necessities of the Muslim community – a mosque and a bath.

Leaving aside Muradiye, which as it will be argued below was actually built by Murad II, in present-day Plovdiv there is no sign of such early buildings’ existence. The lack of extent early structures certainly poses a great difficulty in front of researchers but still does not mean that they have never existed. Moreover, there are clues clearly pointing to the existence of Ottoman buildings in Filibe constructed prior to 1410, thus not too far from the time of Lala Şahin, which vanished in time.

Muradiye 1879

The source of this information is a Bulgarian Christian clergyman – Constantine the Philosopher (Kostenecki) who compiled the vita of the Sebrian king Stephen Lazarevic. Describing the deeds of the deceased king, Constantine often speaks of the wars waged between the sons of Bayezid I in Rumelia in the early 1400s. In one of the described episodes in the course of the bloody war between the brothers in Thrace, Musa attacked Süleyman, while the latter was in Filibe. Noteworthy here is Constantine’s remark that while Musa’s army was besieging the city, Süleyman, completely disregarding the incoming threat, feasted with his closest men in a bath (hamam), which testifies for the existence of hamam in Filibe as early as 1410. It is very unlikely that the bath was built and stood on its own. It rather must have been meant to serve the congregation which used a mosque somewhere in the approximate vicinity, suggesting that although unnoticed by the sources there must have been a mosque too. Who was the patron of the mosque and the bath which in early 1400s stood in Filibe, but were probably destroyed during the warfare of 1410, is unknown, but the conqueror of the city Lala Şahin Pasha is among the first names that come to mind. There is also a chance that both were actually built by Murad I, which on its own must have left a trace in local memory and could probably explain the note of Evliya Çelebi ascribing Muradiye mosque to sultan Murad I.

Muradiye of Murad II

Muradiye was built on an open space at the foot of one of the hills, just a few meters below the walls of the medieval stronghold. The building is a massive rectangular (30 x 40 meters),

Muradiye, Plovdiv (Plan: M. Staynova)

having three large domes over the central space, supported by four massive pillars, and two lateral spaces covered by three vaults on each side. The building had a five domed portico which collapsed and was replaced, probably during the eighteenth century restoration (1785), by a penthouse resting on walls’ extensions from the sides and four stone columns, which can be seen on 1879 photograph. In the 1900s the portico was removed and replaced by a lower wooden structure which occupies the front space up until the present. The mosque’s only tall brick-made minaret attached to the northeast corner of the building is almost entirely preserved in its original fifteenth-century shape, excluding its part above the balcony (şerefe) which was rebuilt in post-1928 earthquake repair and in 2006-2008 restoration.

Ulu Cami, Bergama (Plan: Ayverdi)

The massive more than one and a half meter thick walls, on which the lead covered roof rests, were built in consecutive layers of cut stone, as briks surrounding each stone were used for exterior decoration. Two rolls of windows on tree of the sides of the mosque ensure enough day light in the interior, several small windows on the drums supporting the domes and the vaults were opened in a later period – probably a nineteenth century addition. There are blind arches on the walls of the mosque, which did not find an adequate explanation yet, but probably point to a very substantial reconstruction which the building saw.

Architecturally Muradiye belongs to the group of Great Friday mosques (Ulu camii) as its closest predecessor must be the Great mosque in Bergama, built by Bayezid I.

There is no original dedicatory inscription above the entrance, as there was not at the time of Evliya’s visit to Filibe, but stylistically the building must be assigned to the first half of the fifteenth century. The inscription placed above the entrance that is seen today refers to a great repair work undertaken by sultan Abdülhamid I in 1784, because “the mosque of sultan Murad had fallen in despair” and does not contain a construction date (1423) as Mijatev claimed. The assumption that the mosque must have been built in the fifteenth century, thus during the reign of Murad II (1421-44 and 1446-51) is strongly supported by archival materials some of which were long published by Barkan. Evliya claims that Muradiye mosque had a very rich foundation (vakıf) supporting it, but the Ottoman official documentation disagrees with the traveller. It seems that Muradiye in Plovdiv has never had its own vakıf, but it was part of the large and rich foundation established in order to support the T-shaped imaret/zaviye built by Murad II in Edirne, which is also known as Muradiye. The fact that the mosque in Plovdiv was supported by the same foundation which also maintained Murad II’s building in Edirne, not only leaves little doubt as to who was the founder of Muradiye in Plovdiv, but also is a good indication for the actual date of its construction.

Postcard 1940s

The mosque in Plovdiv must have been built between 1421 when Murad II ascended to the throne and 1435 when the foundation deed of Muradiye in Edirne was actually compiled. Being occupied in fighting against the contestants for his throne and external enemies it is unlikely that Murad II could have began the construction of the mosque in Filibe before the mid-1420s. If we assume that the mosque in Filibe was actually completed together with Muradiye in Edirne, or a year or two earlier, so that it was included in the latter’s pious foundation, then it is highly likely that Plovdiv’s Cumaya or Muradiye mosque was built in the early 1430s. Apparently Muradiye mosque in Plovdiv was a part of Murad II’s ambitious building program, which resulted in the construction of several other important monuments in the Ottoman Balkans, like Üç Şerefeli Cami in Edirne; Hünkâr (Muradiye) mosque in Skopje, which in its original shape probably resembled very much to Plovdiv’s mosques; the complex and the bridge in Uzunköprü, etc. While describing the buildings patronized by Murad II, Hibri Efendi – a seventeenth-century historian from Edirne, has no doubts that the old mosque in Filibe was actually built by Murad II.

It seems that the construction of Muradiye in Filibe in the 1430s was a part of a general attempt for revitalizing the city. There is no single evidence supporting the claim that Muradiye was established as part of a complex, which included the nearby caravanserai, bedesten and hamam. In contrast, although these buildings seem to have appeared soon after or even simultaneously with Muradiye their patron was not Murad II. For example Tahtakale hamamı which thanks to its close proximity to Muradiye is often pointed as part of its complex was indeed built by the then beylerbeyi of Rumeli Hacı Şihabeddin Paşa, as pointed by the archival records. Who were the patrons of the other two buildings and which were the dates of their constructions are yet to be established, but there is no reason for attributing them to Murad II.

Bibliography:

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2006

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: Grigor Boykov, 2009

photo: G. Boykov 2007

photo: G. Boykov 2007

photo: G. Boykov 2007

photo: G. Boykov 2007

photo: G. Boykov 2007

photo: G. Boykov 2007