Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-qn7h5 Total loading time: 0.626 Render date: 2022-09-25T06:41:15.585Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014


In this paper we focus on the Republican Mosque in Derinkuyu, Turkey, a Greek Orthodox church built in 1859 and transformed into a mosque in 1949 that still exhibits many obviously Christian structural features not found in most such converted churches. We utilize the concept of religioscape, defined as the distribution in spaces through time of the physical manifestations of specific religious traditions and of the populations that build them, to analyze the historical transformations of the building, and show that this incongruity marks a specific stage in the long-term competitive sharing of space by the two religiously defined communities concerned. This shared but contested space is larger than that of the building or even the town of Derinkuyu. We argue that syncretism without sharing correlates with a lack of need to show dominance symbolically, since the community that had lost the sacred building had been displaced as a group, and was no longer present to be impressed or intimidated.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Authors’ note: The research for this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant 0719677, and the Wenner–Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; neither foundation bears any responsibility for the data or analyses presented here, which are our own. We also acknowledge the helpful comments in the course of our work by our colleagues in the Antagonistic Tolerance project: Milica Bakić-Hayden, Manuel Aguilar, Enrique Lopez-Hurtado, Devika Rangachari, and Timothy Walker. We thank our research assistants Tunca Arıcan and Zeynep Ceylanlı for their contribution to this article; Kutlu Akalın, Muharrem Erdem, and Stefan Peychev for helping us locate obscure references; and İbrahim Uzun for sharing 19th-century photographs of Derinkuyu.

1 Hasluck, F. W., Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, ed. Hasluck, Margaret M. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929)Google Scholar.

2 We note that other authors have replaced “shared” with “mixed,” arguing that “sharing” seems to denote “amity” that may be misplaced. Bowman, Glenn, “Orthodox-Muslim Interactions at ‘Mixed Shrines’ in Macedonia,” in Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective, ed. Hann, C. M. and Golz, H. (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2009), 163–83Google Scholar. However, we see “shared” and “mixed” as equally descriptive of the presence of people from different groups in a space, and this usage is common among other writers. See, for example, Couroucli, Maria, “Introduction,” in Sharing Sacred Spaces in the Mediterranean, ed. Albera, D. and Couroucli, M. (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2012), 19Google Scholar.

3 See, for example, Hayden, Robert M., Sözer, Hande, Tanyeri-Erdemir, Tuğba, and Erdemir, Aykan, “The Byzantine Mosque at Trilye: A Processual Analysis of Dominance, Sharing, Transformation and Tolerance,” History & Anthropology 22 (2011): 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hayden, Robert M., “Antagonistic Tolerance: Competitive Sharing of Religious Sites in South Asia and the Balkans,” Current Anthropology 43 (2002): 205–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Hayden, Robert M. and Walker, Timothy D., “Intersecting Religioscapes: A Comparative Approach to Trajectories of Change, Scale, and Competitive Sharing of Religious Spaces,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81, no. 2 (2013): 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The Convention on the Exchange of Populations was signed on 30 January 1923, as part of the Lausanne Treaty. Hirschon, Renée, “Introduction: Background and Overview,” in Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey, ed. Hirschon, Renée (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2003), 323Google Scholar. A total of 44,432 Greek Orthodox Cappadocians were expelled from Turkey and resettled in Greece. Vaso Stelaku, “Space, Place and Identity: Memory and Religion in Two Cappadocian Greek Settlements,” in Hirschon, Crossing the Aegean, 180; see also Clark, Bruce, Twice a Stranger: The Mass Expulsions That Forged Modern Greece and Turkey (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 102105Google Scholar.

6 Our approach is thus explicitly in contrast to some other analyses of shared sites, such as Bowman, Glenn, “The Violence in Identity,” in Anthropology of Violence and Conflict, ed. Schmidt, B. and Schroeder, I. (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 2546Google Scholar; Albera, Dionigi, “‘Why Are You Mixing What Cannot Be Mixed?’ Shared Devotions in the Monotheisms,” History and Anthropology 19 (2008): 3759CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowman, Glenn, “Identification and Identity Formations around Shared Shrines in West Bank Palestine and Western Macedonia,” in Sharing Sacred Spaces in the Mediterranean: Christians, Muslims, and Jews at Shrines and Sanctuaries, ed. Albera, Dionigi and Couroucli, Maria (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2012), 1028Google Scholar; and idem, “‘In Dubious Battle on the Plains of Heav'n’: The Politics of Possession in Jerusalem's Holy Sepulchre,” History & Anthropology 22 (2011): 371–99. See also Hayden et al., “The Byzantine Mosque at Trilye”; and Hayden and Walker, “Intersecting Religioscapes.”

7 Hayden, “Antagonistic Tolerance.”

8 The Antagonistic Tolerance (AT) project is a comparative and interdisciplinary study of competitive sharing of religious sites that was initiated in 2006 and has involved research in Bulgaria, India, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, and Turkey in sites from various historical periods and cultures, including India from the ancient through the Portuguese colonial period, Portugal from the Roman through Moorish eras and into the modern period, Turkey from the late Roman through Ottoman eras to the present, the Ottoman Balkans, the early colonial periods in Mexico and Peru, and contemporary India and the former Yugoslavia. The AT project has had substantial funding from competitive sources, and has included participants from the United States, India, Mexico, Peru, Serbia, and Turkey.

9 For some examples, see Kırımtayıf, Süleyman, Converted Byzantine Churches in Istanbul: Their Transformation into Mosques and Masjids (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2001)Google Scholar; Pekak, Sacit, Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih Camisi Bizans Kapalı Yunan Haçı Planı (Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2009)Google Scholar; and Hayden et al., “Byzantine Mosque,” 6–12.

10 We have been exploring this phenomenon through the Antagonistic Tolerance project. See Hayden et al., “Byzantine Mosque”; and Hayden and Walker, “Intersecting Religioscapes.”

11 Bouras, Laskarina, “Templon,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Kazhdan, Alexander P., vol. 3 (New York: Oxford University Press), 2023–24Google Scholar.

12 Norris, Frederic W., “Greek Christianities,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 2, Constantine to c.600, ed. Casiday, Augustine and Norris, Frederic W. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 79–82Google Scholar.

13 Kostof, Spiro, Caves of God: The Monastic Environment of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

14 Dawkins, R.M., “Modern Greek in Asia Minor,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 30 (1910): 109–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In 1895 there were 1,600 Christians and 400 Turks in the town. In 1909, there were 2,000 Christians and 800 Turks. Malakopi was one of the few towns that saw an increase in its Greek-speaking population at the end of the 19th century.

15 Aytekin, Osman, Dünden Bugüne Derinkuyu. Niğde (Niğde, Turkey: Elma Ofset Matbaacılık, 2006), 7080Google Scholar.

16 Dawkins, “Modern Greek,” 118.

17 Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 74128Google Scholar.

18 Sacit Pekak summarizes the process of obtaining permission for church-building in the Ottoman Empire, in “Kappadokia Bölgesi Osmanlı Dönemi Kiliseleri: Örnekler, Sorunlar, Öneriler,” METU JFA 2 (2009): 250–53. The legal clauses of the Tanzimat related to the permission to build churches are included in Madran, Emre, Tanzimat'tan Cumhuriyet'e Kültür Varlıklarının Korunmasına İlişkin Tutumlar ve Düzenlemeler: 1800–1950 (Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Basım İşliği, 2002), 3334Google Scholar. The reforms of the Tanzimat era included several architectural clauses related to urban restructuring as well as architectural codes on how to build different types of edifices. See Denel, Serim, Batılılaşma Sürecinde İstanbul'da Tasarım ve Dış Mekanlarda Değişim ve Nedenleri (Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 1982)Google Scholar. For a detailed analysis of the urban dimensions of the imperial building projects of the late Ottoman Empire, see Çelik, Zeynep, Empire, Architecture and the City: French-Ottoman Encounters, 1830–1914 (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

19 Although this church is abandoned and unfurnished, it is visited by children and grandchildren of exchangees of 1923, sometimes accompanied by clergy from the Patriarchate in Istanbul, to conduct services. In 2010, the Greek-Orthodox Patriarch Bartolomeos was accompanied by two other bishops and about 1,000 visitors, none of whom live in the town, and the church is no longer consecrated. For accounts of this event in press, see “Bartholomeos Derinkuyu'da Ayin Yönetti,” Haber50, 8 June 2008; and “Bartholomeos Derinkuyu'da Ayine Katıldı,” Avanos Gazetesi, 27 June 2010.

20 Pekak, Sacit, “Kappadokya'da Post-Bizans Dönemi Dini Mimarisi I (1),” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 83 (1998): 16Google Scholar.

21 These competitions and disputes were also noted by Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 75.

22 The wall paintings of St. Theodoros Trion Church are intact (Pekak, “Post-Bizans [1],” 15–16), while those of the Church of the Archangels are now covered. An image of the dome decoration is published in Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 78.

23 Pekak, “Post-Bizans (1),” 16.

24 For Greek transcriptions and Turkish translations of these dedicatory inscriptions see ibid., 15–18.

25 Ibid., 19.

26 Sacit Pekak, “Kappadokia,” 253.

27 Ibid., 253.

28 E. Ertani, “Fatih Altaylı’ya ait oldugu ortaya çıkan Yedi Kilise ve diğer özel mülke ait kiliseler o kaçınılmaz soruyu sorduruyor: Hani bu kiliselerin ilk sahibi?,” Agos, 28 September 2012, 5.

29 Also see Pekak, “Kappadokia,” 258.

30 Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 75.

31 For the Greek inscription, see Pekak, “Post-Bizans (1),” 18–19.

32 For a concise overview of the emergence of multiparty politics in Turkey, see Ahmad, Feroz, The Making of Modern Turkey (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), 102–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Turan, İlter, “Religion and Political Culture in Turkey,” in Islam in Modern Turkey Religion, Politics and Literature in a Secular State, ed. Tapper, Richard (London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 1991), 45Google Scholar.

34 Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 75–78.

35 The graffiti are scribbled in pencil or ink, covering the entire surface of the balcony wall overlooking the church, on a grey wall. They are very hard to see or photograph. Most of the writing is in the Greek alphabet, but there are some Arabic letters and Turkish names. The dates range from 1924 to 2000s.

36 The Church Museum in Komotini/Gümülcine in northern Greece is a restored Ottoman building, and has a collection of icons from Cappadocia, carried off to Greece by the exchangees from the region. Lowry, Heath, In the Footsteps of the Ottomans: A Search for Sacred Spaces & Architectural Monuments in Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press), 3234Google Scholar. We assume that the iconostasis of the Republican Mosque once supported such icons.

37 The dome of Yeni Maden Camisi, which is a functioning mosque in Gümüşhacıköy, Amasya, bears the image of Christ and four archangels, and inscriptions in Greek. The frescoes are uncovered, though in a dilapidated state. Ataç, Adnan, Fotoğraflarla Amasya Güzellemesi (Amasya: T.C. Amasya Valiliği, 2009), 7677Google Scholar.

38 Necipoğlu, Gülru, “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium,” in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present, Robert Mark and Ahmet Çakmak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982), 195225Google Scholar.

39 Yusuf Kerimoğlu, “Camii ve Resim,” Milli Gazete, 3 September 1982, 6.

40 See Hayden et al., “Byzantine Mosque,” 11–14.

41 Karakasidou, Anastasia, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870–1990 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

42 See Pekak, “Kappadokia,” 257–58.

43 Pekak, “Post-Bizans (1),” 18.

44 Bruce Clark, Twice a Stranger, 103–105.

45 Ibid., 102.

46 Boyar, Ebru, Ottomans, Turks and the Balkans: Empire Lost, Relations Altered, Library of Ottoman Studies 12 (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007)Google Scholar.

47 The orientation of many historical mosques are off, probably due to miscalculations. See Barmore, Frank E., “Turkish Mosque Orientation and the Secular Variation of the Magnetic Declination,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, no. 2 (1985): 8198CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Hayden and Walker, “Intersecting Religoscapes.”

49 Appadurai, Arjun, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

50 See, for history, Schama, Simon, Landscape and Memory (New York: Knopf, 1995)Google Scholar; and for archaeology, Birge, Darice, “Tress in the Landscape of Pausinias's Periegesis,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. Alcock, S. E. and Osborne, R. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 231–45Google Scholar; Alcock, Susan, “The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire,” in Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, ed. Alcock, Susan, D'Altry, Terence, Morrison, Kathleen, and Sinopoli, Carla (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 323–50Google Scholar; and Alcock, Susan, Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscapes, Monuments and Memories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

51 See, for example, Roudometof, Victor, “Greek Orthodoxy, Territoriality, and Globality: Religious Responses and Institutional Disputes,” Sociology of Religion 69 (2008): 6791CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McAlester, Elizabeth, “Globalization and the Religious Production of Space,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (2005): 249–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Edwards, Marc, “Synods and Councils,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 2, Constantine to c.600, ed. Casiday, Augustine and Norris, Frederic W. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 367–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Clogg, Richard, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” in Christians and the Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, ed. Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard (London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 185207Google Scholar; for a critical perspective on the early functioning of the millet system, and on early uses of the term, see also Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System,” in Braude and Lewis, Christians and the Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 69–88.

54 Such a model was outlined by Hasluck, Christianity and Islam, 564–94, under the title “Ambiguous Sanctuaries.”

55 Hayden, “Antagonistic Tolerance”; Hayden and Walker, “Intersecting Relgioscapes.”

56 Hayden, “Religious Structures and Political Dominance in Belgrade”; Hayden et al., “The Byzantine Mosque in Trilye”; Andrejovic, Andrej, “Pretvaranje Crkve u Dzamije,” Zbornik za Likovne Umetnosti 12 (1976): 99117Google Scholar; Lowry, In the Footsteps of the Ottomans.

57 Bowman, Glenn, “Introduction: Sharing the Sacra,” in Sharing the Sacra: the Politics and Pragmatics of Inter-communal Relations around Holy Places, ed. Bowman, Glenn (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books: 2012)Google Scholar.

58 Zürcher, Erik J., Turkey: A Modern History (London: I. B. Tauris, 1993), 5274Google Scholar.

59 The building processes of the Tanzimat churches, and how they relate to other local and regional building activities of late Ottoman architectural production, is an important and interesting topic, but one which seems not to have been widely studied. Because these 19th-century churches are essentially Ottoman but non-Byzantine edifices, they have largely fallen between academic specialities; Ottoman architectural historians traditionally focus more on Islamic religious structures, and Tanzimat churches are much later than the Byzantine church building horizon of Anatolia. Thus, they fall into a rarely studied subcategory. However, some individual 19th-century churches are analyzed in recent literature. See, for Istanbul, Şarlak, Eva, “19. Yüzyılda İstanbul'un Değişmesinde Rol Oynayan Kubbeli Rum Ortodoks Kiliseleri,” in Batılılaşan İstanbul'un Rum Mimarları, ed. Şarlak, Eva and Kuruyazıcı, Hasan (Istanbul: Zoğrafyon Lisesi Mezunları Derneği Yayınları, 2010), 8093Google Scholar; Han, Elmon, “19. Yüzyıl İstanbul Dini Mimarisinde Yeni Tipoloji: Kubbeli Kiliseler ve Çan Kuleleri,” in Batılılaşan İstanbul'un Ermeni Mimarları, ed. Kuruyazıcı, Hasan (Istanbul: Uluslararası Hrant Dink Vakfı Yayınları), 8089Google Scholar; and Girardelli, PaoloArchitecture, Identitiy and Liminality: On the Use and Meaning of Catholic Spaces in Late Ottoman Istanbul,” Muqarnas 22 (2005): 233–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Cappadocia, see Pekak, “Post-Bizans (1)”; Pekak, “Kappadokia”; and Fügen İlter, “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Dönemi Mimarlığında Kayseri Yöresi Hıristiyan Yapıları: Germir ve Endüllük Kiliseleri,” Belleten LIII/205 (1988): 1663–83. For western Anatolia, see İlter, Fügen, “Batı Anadolu Azınlık Kiliselerinden İkonografik Belirlemeler ve Kimi İrdelemeler,” in Sanat Tarihinde İkonografik Araştırmalar: Güner İnal'a Armağan (Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 1993), 213–38Google Scholar.

60 Before the Tanzimat reforms, building a new church required a significant amount of effort, and such permits were very rarely issued; see Gradeva, Rossitsa, “Ottoman Policy towards Christian Church Buildings,” Balkan Studies 4 (1994): 1436Google Scholar. Even in such cases, the new edifice would have to be built on the location of an already existing church damaged beyond repair, and it could not be larger than that one. One would need a fetwa followed by a firman (official permit issued by the sultan) in order to start the building process for a church. Customarily only forty days of building period would be allowed and the building process was strongly regulated by the central government. See Arnakis, Georgiades G., “The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Modern History 24 (1952): 245–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Rossitsa Gradeva, “Ottoman Policy,” 14–36.

62 Several rules and regulations controlled the construction of non-Muslim shrines after the Tanzimat reforms. Before minorities could build their temples, they had to make a formal application, including a prospective plan of the building, its location, dimensions, construction materials, required workforce, groups of artisans to be employed, and an account of finances. The newly erected non-Muslim structures could not be in the vicinity of already existing Muslim sacred sites. Güngör-Açıkgöz, Şeyda, “19. yüzyılda Kayseri kiliseleri için koruma önerileri,” İTÜ Dergisi 7/2 (2008): 28Google Scholar.

63 Sacit Pekak, “Kappadokia,” 249–77.

64 Ibid., 250–53.

65 One of the challenges of investigating Ottoman architectural production outside of the capital is that the center has received more academic attention than the periphery of the empire, as pointed out by Hartmuth, Max, “The History of Centre Periphery Relations as a History of Style in Ottoman Provincial Architecture,” in Centers and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage, ed. Hartmuth, M. (Sarajevo: Cultural Heritage without Borders, 2010), 1829Google Scholar.

66 See, for example, Pekak “Post-Bizans (1),” 16; Pekak, Sacit, “Kappadokya'da Post-Bizans Dönemi Dini Mimarisi I: Nevşehir ve Çevresi (2),” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 84 (1998): 2332Google Scholar; Pekak, Sacit and Aydın, Suavi, “Selçuk ve Çevresinde Osmanlı İdaresindeki Gayrimüslim Tebaanın İmar Faaliyetleri,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 15 (1998): 125–55Google Scholar; İlter, “Kayseri”; and İlter, “Batı Anadolu.”

67 Other terms used for “Tanzimat churches” are “Post-Bizans Kiliseleri” (post-Byzantine churches, see Pekak, “Kappadokia” and Pekak, “Post-Bizans [2]”) and “Azınlık Kiliseleri” (minority churches, see İlter, “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Dönemi” and İlter, “Batı Anadolu Azınlık,” 213–38).

68 Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 75.

69 Karpat, Kemal H., “The Transformation of the Ottoman State, 1789–1908,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (1972): 260–61Google Scholar.

70 In the Pontic zone there is a well documented case of a Tanzimat church becoming a center of resistance. The Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Samsun, under the direction of Germanos Karavangelis, the Metropolit of the Black Sea Region, played an important role in the organization of military forces in the first two decades of the 20th century. Sarısakal, Baki, Bir Kentin Tarihi Samsun, Samsun Araştırmaları I (Samsun, Turkey: Samsun Valiliği İl Kültür Yayınları, 2002), 2631Google Scholar.

71 Mazower, Mark, The Balkans from the End of Byzantium to the Present Day (London: Phoenix Press, 2000), 86115Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., 50–85.

73 Within the Christian communities of the Balkans there were cleveages and disputes that underpinned the development of national identities along religious faultlines. The Serbian Orthodox Church, for instance, announced its authocephalous state in 1834 and the Greek Orthodox Church followed in 1835, though the position of the Greek Orthodox Church was revised in the 1850s around the ideal of the “Megali Idea.” Kutlu, Sacit, Milliyetçilik ve Emperyalizm Yüzyılında Balkanlar ve Osmanlı Devleti (Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007), 6263Google Scholar.

74 Quataret, Donald, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 113–16Google Scholar.

75 For studies on the population exchange of 1923, see Arı, Kemal, Büyük Mübadele Türkiye'ye Zorunlu Göç (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2007)Google Scholar; Clark, Twice a Stranger; and Hirschon, Crossing the Aegean.

76 Ousterhout, Robert G., “The East, the West and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture,” Gesta 43 (2004): 165–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Necipoğlu, “The Life of an Imperial Monument,” 203–204.

78 Only members of the Ottoman dynasty had the privilege of building mosques with multiple minarets. Ibid., 203.

79 Ousterhout, “Appropriation of the Past,” 168–70.

80 For architectural details, see Pekak, Trilye, 41–72.

81 Hayden et al., “Byzantine Mosque,” 11.

82 Necipoğlu, Gülru, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 390–91Google Scholar.

83 Koyuncu, Aşkın, “Bulgaristan'da Osmanlı Maddi Kültür Mirasının Tasfiyesi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 20 (2006): 224–25Google Scholar.

84 Banya Başı Camii was the only operating mosque left in Sofia by 1882. There were eighty-two operating mosques in Sofia before 1878. Koyuncu, “Bulgaristan'da Osmanlı,” 221.

85 The oldest and largest mosque in Sofia, the Büyük Camii (“Grand Mosque”), is now the National Museum of Archaeology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, having also served as the National Library from 1880 to 1893, when it was turned into the museum. See Shegunova, Rositsa, “The Building of Byuyuk Mosque Has Housed the National Archaeological Museum for 111 Years Now,” Bulgarian Diplomatic Review 9 (2004)Google Scholar,; and Koyuncu, “Bulgaristan'da Osmanlı,” 222–23.

86 Selected Muslim Historic Monuments and Sites in Bulgaria (Washington D.C.: United States Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad, 2010), 81–82.

87 Aytekin, Derinkuyu, 75.

88 Hasluck, Christianity and Islam.

Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *