Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by ipek fetullahoğlu

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 11. Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District today (Authors’ archive, 2017)

Figure 11 Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District today (Authors’ archive, 2017)

Related Figures (69)

1.Hiidavendigar Kulliye and Mosque, 2. Muradiye Kulliye, Mosque, Madrasa and Tombs, 3.Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs, 4. Grand Mosque, 5.Orhan Gazi Kulliye and Mosque, 6. Green (Yesil) Kulliye, Mosque and Tomb, 7. Yildirim Bayezid Kulliye, Mosque and Tomb Heritage List by UNESCO in 2014. During this process, a management plan has been prepared and approved by the local government in order to ensure the sustainability of heritage sites. In this context, maintenance and repairs of the complexes and their surroundings ate put into practice within the framework of the approved management plan.
1.Hiidavendigar Kulliye and Mosque, 2. Muradiye Kulliye, Mosque, Madrasa and Tombs, 3.Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs, 4. Grand Mosque, 5.Orhan Gazi Kulliye and Mosque, 6. Green (Yesil) Kulliye, Mosque and Tomb, 7. Yildirim Bayezid Kulliye, Mosque and Tomb Heritage List by UNESCO in 2014. During this process, a management plan has been prepared and approved by the local government in order to ensure the sustainability of heritage sites. In this context, maintenance and repairs of the complexes and their surroundings ate put into practice within the framework of the approved management plan.
Figure 3. Engraving of view of Bursa from Ankara Road in 1717, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation Library Collection, http:/ /tr.travelogues.gr/item.php?view=43579, Accessed om: 05.02.17)
Figure 3. Engraving of view of Bursa from Ankara Road in 1717, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation Library Collection, http:/ /tr.travelogues.gr/item.php?view=43579, Accessed om: 05.02.17)
Figure 4. Grand Mosque and Its Surrounding photographed by Moustier in 1862 (Dostoglu,2001) 3.1 Analysis of the Transformation of Monuments and Their Surrounding Environment in terms of Urban Scale Within the Light of Visual Documents
Figure 4. Grand Mosque and Its Surrounding photographed by Moustier in 1862 (Dostoglu,2001) 3.1 Analysis of the Transformation of Monuments and Their Surrounding Environment in terms of Urban Scale Within the Light of Visual Documents
Figure 5. Grand Mosque and Its Surrounding today (Authors’ archive, 2017 ’)
Figure 5. Grand Mosque and Its Surrounding today (Authors’ archive, 2017 ’)
Figure 6. Grand Mosque through the Citadel Gate photographed by G. Berggren around 1885 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Figure 6. Grand Mosque through the Citadel Gate photographed by G. Berggren around 1885 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Figure 8. Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District taken by Ali Enis Oza in 1925, (Dostoglu, 2001) While Ulucami is quite large and striking among the structures around it, today it has lost its old appearance with the multi-storey settlement around it (Figure 4, Figure 5). Ulucami, the first item in the old photograph that appears through the Citadel Gate, is almost unrecognizable from this distance today. As part of the restoration of the walls of Bursa, the Citadel Gate was also restored to its present shape (Figure 6, Figure 7).
Figure 8. Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District taken by Ali Enis Oza in 1925, (Dostoglu, 2001) While Ulucami is quite large and striking among the structures around it, today it has lost its old appearance with the multi-storey settlement around it (Figure 4, Figure 5). Ulucami, the first item in the old photograph that appears through the Citadel Gate, is almost unrecognizable from this distance today. As part of the restoration of the walls of Bursa, the Citadel Gate was also restored to its present shape (Figure 6, Figure 7).
Figure 9. Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 9. Hudavendigar Mosque and Cekirge District today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 10. Postcard of Hudavendigar Mosque and Surroundings (Dostoglu, 200 1)
Figure 10. Postcard of Hudavendigar Mosque and Surroundings (Dostoglu, 200 1)
Despite the buildings in front, the majority of the Hudavendigar Mosque could be perceived in the photograph taken in 1925 (Figure 8, Figure 9). However today, only the cone of the minaret is visible from far distance due to the structures surrounding it (Figure 10, Figure 11). Figure 12. Yildirim Bayexid Mosque (on the right) and Emir Sultan Mosque (on the left) photographed by Sebab ¢> Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Despite the buildings in front, the majority of the Hudavendigar Mosque could be perceived in the photograph taken in 1925 (Figure 8, Figure 9). However today, only the cone of the minaret is visible from far distance due to the structures surrounding it (Figure 10, Figure 11). Figure 12. Yildirim Bayexid Mosque (on the right) and Emir Sultan Mosque (on the left) photographed by Sebab ¢> Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Figure 14. Green Mosque and Green Tomb photographed by Sebah ¢ Joailier around 1890 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 14. Green Mosque and Green Tomb photographed by Sebah ¢ Joailier around 1890 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 15. Green Mosque and Green Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 15. Green Mosque and Green Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 16. Muradiye Complex and its surroundings photographed by Sebah ¢» Joaillier around 1894 (Dostoglu 2001)
Figure 16. Muradiye Complex and its surroundings photographed by Sebah ¢» Joaillier around 1894 (Dostoglu 2001)
Despite the irregular and dense structure around, Green Mosque and Green Tomb still maintain their visibility when viewed from the position where Military High School was located (Figure 14, Figure 15).
Despite the irregular and dense structure around, Green Mosque and Green Tomb still maintain their visibility when viewed from the position where Military High School was located (Figure 14, Figure 15).
Figure 18. Postcard of Orhan Mosque around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 18. Postcard of Orhan Mosque around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 20. Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs photographed b by G.] G. Berggren around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001, Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs
Figure 20. Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs photographed b by G.] G. Berggren around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001, Osman Gazi and Orhan Gazi Tombs
Figure 22. Grand Mosque photographed by C. J. Fettel around 1885 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 22. Grand Mosque photographed by C. J. Fettel around 1885 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 24. Postcard of Grand Mosque West Entrance (Oxendes, 1999) In Figure 24, it is seen that the walls of the Grand Mosque are painted with whitewash, the window frames and the decoration of the fountain are different from the photo in Figure 25 which shows the original cut-stone facade. The eaves of the west entrance, that can be observed in the old photograph, is not existing today. The tree, which appears to the left of both photographs, is preserved as a natural monument.
Figure 24. Postcard of Grand Mosque West Entrance (Oxendes, 1999) In Figure 24, it is seen that the walls of the Grand Mosque are painted with whitewash, the window frames and the decoration of the fountain are different from the photo in Figure 25 which shows the original cut-stone facade. The eaves of the west entrance, that can be observed in the old photograph, is not existing today. The tree, which appears to the left of both photographs, is preserved as a natural monument.
The most notable repairs were carried out in 1567 and 1572 after severe southwester winds, in 1855 after a destructive earthquake and in 1889 after a fire. The entire facades of the mosque were covered with a thick plaster layer and painted with whitewash. It was during the extensive restoration works between 1951 and 1959 that the mosque attained its original cut-stone facade (Dostoglu, 2001). In Figure 22, the photograph taken by Fettel shows Ulucami with its minarets before the fire of 1889. While original minaret cones were built of lead, stone was used during the reconstruction of the cones. With the high-rise buildings surrounding the monument, its visibility has weakened (Figure 23).
The most notable repairs were carried out in 1567 and 1572 after severe southwester winds, in 1855 after a destructive earthquake and in 1889 after a fire. The entire facades of the mosque were covered with a thick plaster layer and painted with whitewash. It was during the extensive restoration works between 1951 and 1959 that the mosque attained its original cut-stone facade (Dostoglu, 2001). In Figure 22, the photograph taken by Fettel shows Ulucami with its minarets before the fire of 1889. While original minaret cones were built of lead, stone was used during the reconstruction of the cones. With the high-rise buildings surrounding the monument, its visibility has weakened (Figure 23).
Figure 29. Inner Fountain of Grand Mosque (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 28. Inner Fountain of Grand Mosque photographed by Sebah and Joaillier in 1890 (Oxendes, 199:
Figure 29. Inner Fountain of Grand Mosque (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 28. Inner Fountain of Grand Mosque photographed by Sebah and Joaillier in 1890 (Oxendes, 199:
Figure 26. North Entrance of the Grand Mosque photographed by S' ebah and Joaillier in 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 26. North Entrance of the Grand Mosque photographed by S' ebah and Joaillier in 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 30. Engraving of Grand Mosque minbar by ].F. Lewis in 1838 (Oxdemir, 2015)
Figure 30. Engraving of Grand Mosque minbar by ].F. Lewis in 1838 (Oxdemir, 2015)
Figure 31. Minbar of Grand Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 201 7)
Figure 31. Minbar of Grand Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 201 7)
Figure 32. Postcard of Hudavendigar Mosque around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001) Hudavendigar Mosque
Figure 32. Postcard of Hudavendigar Mosque around 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001) Hudavendigar Mosque
Figure 33. Hudavendigar Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 33. Hudavendigar Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 34. Engraving of Yildirim Bayexid Tomb by Mary Adelaide Walker in 1866 (Ozdemir, 2015,
Figure 34. Engraving of Yildirim Bayexid Tomb by Mary Adelaide Walker in 1866 (Ozdemir, 2015,
The first Ottoman tomb with a portico, which was built on a natural slope, was located at a lower level than Yildirim Mosque. In Figure 34, the engraving depicts the stairs that was linking the mosque to the tomb. When Figure 34 and 35 are compared, level differences and the changes in the pavings of the ground can be observed. Today the ground around the tomb is paved with cut-stone.
The first Ottoman tomb with a portico, which was built on a natural slope, was located at a lower level than Yildirim Mosque. In Figure 34, the engraving depicts the stairs that was linking the mosque to the tomb. When Figure 34 and 35 are compared, level differences and the changes in the pavings of the ground can be observed. Today the ground around the tomb is paved with cut-stone.
Figure 36. Engraving of Yildirim Bayexid Mosque by Mary Adelaide Walker in 1866 (Oxdemir, 2015)
Figure 36. Engraving of Yildirim Bayexid Mosque by Mary Adelaide Walker in 1866 (Oxdemir, 2015)
The arrangements and the buildings around the mosque prevented to take a photograph from a similar angle with the engraving in Figure 36. In Figure 37, the photograph taken from the courtyard of the complex indicates that the mosque is located on a higher level than the rest of the buildings in the complex.
The arrangements and the buildings around the mosque prevented to take a photograph from a similar angle with the engraving in Figure 36. In Figure 37, the photograph taken from the courtyard of the complex indicates that the mosque is located on a higher level than the rest of the buildings in the complex.
Figure 38. Green Mosque photographed by S ebah & Joaillier around 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 38. Green Mosque photographed by S ebah & Joaillier around 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Because of the broken window glasses in the drum and the lightwell of the dome and the cracks on the plaster of the facade, the building seems to be neglected in Figure 38. Today, the building is very well maintained after recent restorations. The courtyard of the mosque is separated from the road by a low wall from the southern facade, as seen in Figure 39.
Because of the broken window glasses in the drum and the lightwell of the dome and the cracks on the plaster of the facade, the building seems to be neglected in Figure 38. Today, the building is very well maintained after recent restorations. The courtyard of the mosque is separated from the road by a low wall from the southern facade, as seen in Figure 39.
Figure 43. Green Mosque Entrance today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 42. Green Mosque Entrance photographed by Sebah & Joaillier in 1894 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 43. Green Mosque Entrance today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 42. Green Mosque Entrance photographed by Sebah & Joaillier in 1894 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 40. Green Mosque Fountain photographed by G. Berggren around 1880 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 40. Green Mosque Fountain photographed by G. Berggren around 1880 (Oxendes, 1999)
———e Figure 44. Engraving of the entrance door of Green Mosque published in the Travelogue of Edmund Dutemple i 1883 (Ozdemir, 2015)
———e Figure 44. Engraving of the entrance door of Green Mosque published in the Travelogue of Edmund Dutemple i 1883 (Ozdemir, 2015)
Figure 47. Interior of Green Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017, Figure 46. Interior view of Green Mosque illustrated by J. C. Carron sc. (Oxdemir, 2015)
Figure 47. Interior of Green Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017, Figure 46. Interior view of Green Mosque illustrated by J. C. Carron sc. (Oxdemir, 2015)
In Figure 42 and Figure 44, it is seen that there is eaves over the main entrance and cantilevers carrying the eaves can be observed on two sides of the main entrance decorated with mugarnas. However Figure 43 and 45 reveal that eaves and cantilevers are not existing today. When the photographs in Figure 42 and 44 are compared with 43 and 45, the level differences and the changes in the pavings of the ground can be observed.
In Figure 42 and Figure 44, it is seen that there is eaves over the main entrance and cantilevers carrying the eaves can be observed on two sides of the main entrance decorated with mugarnas. However Figure 43 and 45 reveal that eaves and cantilevers are not existing today. When the photographs in Figure 42 and 44 are compared with 43 and 45, the level differences and the changes in the pavings of the ground can be observed.
Figure 48. Green Mosque photographed by Sebah ¢ Joailher circa 1890 (Dostoglu, 2001) Figure 46 depicted the space with a dome supported on Turkish triangles between two iwans. In this engraving, an arched window was illustrated in the middle of Turkish triangles. However, in Figure 47, it is seen that this window was closed, probably during later restorations. It is also obvious that the fountain under the dome is different today than the original one.
Figure 48. Green Mosque photographed by Sebah ¢ Joailher circa 1890 (Dostoglu, 2001) Figure 46 depicted the space with a dome supported on Turkish triangles between two iwans. In this engraving, an arched window was illustrated in the middle of Turkish triangles. However, in Figure 47, it is seen that this window was closed, probably during later restorations. It is also obvious that the fountain under the dome is different today than the original one.
Figure 50. Entrance of Green Tomb photographed by Sebah & Joaillier, circa 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 50. Entrance of Green Tomb photographed by Sebah & Joaillier, circa 1890 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 51. Entrance of Green Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 20 17,
Figure 51. Entrance of Green Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 20 17,
Figure 52. The sarcophagus of Celebi Mehmed photographed by M. Heron and illustrated by G. Garen (Oxdemir, 2015)
Figure 52. The sarcophagus of Celebi Mehmed photographed by M. Heron and illustrated by G. Garen (Oxdemir, 2015)
The engraving in Figure 50 illustrated that the close environment of the tomb was a place where children play, a place in everyday life, the photograph in Figure 51 depicts that today it is a place where tourists that came to Bursa visit mostly. With that purpose, an information and a security took place in front of the tomb. When Figure 50 and Figure 51 is compared, it is seen that the eaves of the entrance door no longer exists, the landscape elements have also changed.
The engraving in Figure 50 illustrated that the close environment of the tomb was a place where children play, a place in everyday life, the photograph in Figure 51 depicts that today it is a place where tourists that came to Bursa visit mostly. With that purpose, an information and a security took place in front of the tomb. When Figure 50 and Figure 51 is compared, it is seen that the eaves of the entrance door no longer exists, the landscape elements have also changed.
Figure 55. Muradiye Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 54. Muradiye Mosque photographed by G. Berggren in 1887 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 55. Muradiye Mosque today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 54. Muradiye Mosque photographed by G. Berggren in 1887 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 56. Front facade of Muradiye Mosque photographed by Pascal Sebah in 1870 (Dostoglu, 2001) In the photo in Figure 54, the second minaret is seen as not yet added. The entrance to the courtyard, which appears between the portico entrance (nathex/place of the last congregation) and the fountain, is not existing today. When Figure 54 and Figure 55 are compared, it can be observed that the window over the door of the east facade that was located in an arched niche was closed during later interventions.
Figure 56. Front facade of Muradiye Mosque photographed by Pascal Sebah in 1870 (Dostoglu, 2001) In the photo in Figure 54, the second minaret is seen as not yet added. The entrance to the courtyard, which appears between the portico entrance (nathex/place of the last congregation) and the fountain, is not existing today. When Figure 54 and Figure 55 are compared, it can be observed that the window over the door of the east facade that was located in an arched niche was closed during later interventions.
Figure 58. The courtyard of Muradiye Mosque and the fountain photographed circa 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001,
Figure 58. The courtyard of Muradiye Mosque and the fountain photographed circa 1900 (Dostoglu, 2001,
Figure 59. The courtyard of Muradiye Mosque and the fountain (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 59. The courtyard of Muradiye Mosque and the fountain (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 63. Sebzade Mustafa Tomb (on the left), (ortada geride) Giilsah Hatun Tomb (in the middle at the back), Mikrime Hatun Tomb (on the right) today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 62. Tourists visiting tombs of Muradiye complex photographed in 1900 (Oxendes, 1999)
Figure 63. Sebzade Mustafa Tomb (on the left), (ortada geride) Giilsah Hatun Tomb (in the middle at the back), Mikrime Hatun Tomb (on the right) today (Authors’ archive, 2017) Figure 62. Tourists visiting tombs of Muradiye complex photographed in 1900 (Oxendes, 1999)
‘igure 60. Interior of Muradiye Mosque photographed by Sebah C Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2001)
‘igure 60. Interior of Muradiye Mosque photographed by Sebah C Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Muradiye Tombs
Muradiye Tombs
Figure 64. Gulruh Sultan and Sirin Hatun Tombs photographed by Sebah ¢ Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 64. Gulruh Sultan and Sirin Hatun Tombs photographed by Sebah ¢ Joaillier in 1894 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 66. Sebzade Mahmud Tomb illustrated by Mary Adelaide Walker (Ozdemir, 2015)
Figure 66. Sebzade Mahmud Tomb illustrated by Mary Adelaide Walker (Ozdemir, 2015)
Figure 67. Sehzade Mahmud Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 67. Sehzade Mahmud Tomb today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 68. Muradiye Madrasah photographed by Auguste Leon in 1913 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 68. Muradiye Madrasah photographed by Auguste Leon in 1913 (Dostoglu, 2001)
Figure 69. Muradiye Madrasah today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 69. Muradiye Madrasah today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 70. Fountain of Muradiye Madrasah photographed by Auguste Leon in 1913 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Figure 70. Fountain of Muradiye Madrasah photographed by Auguste Leon in 1913 (Dostoglu, 2007)
Figure 71. Fountain of Muradiye Madrasah today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
Figure 71. Fountain of Muradiye Madrasah today (Authors’ archive, 2017)
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved