Amasya kenti'nin fiziksel yapısının tarihsel gelişimi
Historical evolution of the physical structure of Amasya
Yazar: KANİ KUŞUCULAR
Danışman: PROF. DOĞAN KUBAN
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Derece: Doktora, 1994
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture
Dizin: Amasya = Amasya ; Kent dokusu = Urban texture ; Kent tarihi = Urban history

Özet:
Bu tezin amacı Anadolu'nun önemli kentlerine ait "kent tarihi" çalışmalarının çok az olduğu ülkemizde, Türk öncesi ve Türk dönemlerinde önemli yerleşme merkezi olarak görülen "Amasya Kenti" nin fiziksel yapısının tarihsel gelişim sürecinin incelenmesidir. Araştırmada, kent ile ilgili çeşitli uygarlık dönemlerine ait maddi kalıntıların ve mevcut yerleşme dokusunun yazılı kaynaklarla birlikte değerlendirilmesi ve kent dokusunun her uygarlık dönemine ait fiziksel yapısının ortaya konması öngörülmüştür. Bu amaçla özgün yazılı kaynaklara olabildiğince ulaşılmaya çalışılmış ve özellikle Osmanlı Dönemi ile ilgili olarak arşiv belgelerinin kent planı üzerine aktarılarak değerlendirilmesi, tartışılması amaçlanmıştır. Kent dokusu ve anıtlarla ilgili yerinde yapılan saptamaların yanısıra İller Bankası halihazır haritan, Genel Kurmay Başkanlığı Harita Genel Müdürlüğü'nden temin edilen harita ve hava fotoğrafları ile diğer basılı yayınlarda yer alan kent planlarından yararlanılarak, yerinde gözlem ve küçük çapta aletli ölçmelerle (Bazı noktaların kontrolü ve özellikle Kale'nin konumunun tayini için) kentin topoğrafik durumunu yansıtan bir "Master Plan" hazırlanmış ve kentin tarihsel gelişimi bu plan üzerinde gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. Tez altı bölümden oluşmaktadır. 1. Bölümde çalışmanın amacı, kullanılan yöntem ve yararlanılan kaynaklar tanıtılmıştır. 2. Bölümde Kentin topoğrafik yapısı, kentin konumunu ve belli başlı topoğrafik elemanlarını gösteren bir haritayla birlikte kısaca özetlenmiş, 3. Bölümde ise bölgedeki ilk yerleşmeler ve kentin genel kuruluşu ile ilgili tarihi bilgiler irdelenmiştir. 4. Bölüm Türk-İslam öncesi dönemin fiziksel yapısını tanımlamayı amaçlamıştır. 5. Bölümde, yukarıda anlatılan bu gelişmelerin olduğu Türk-İslam döneminde kentin fiziksel yapısının evrimi irdelenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, çok önemli kaynak olan tapu tahrir defterlerindeki mahalleler, diğer yazılı kaynaklar ve günümüze gelebilen yer adlan ile birlikte değerlendirilerek kent planı üzerine aktarılmış ve çeşitli tarihlere ait mahalle planlan oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu restitüsyon çalışmalarında mozayiğin bütün parçalarının yerine oturtulması elbette beklenemez. Ancak soru işareti içeren parçalan ile birlikte toparlanabilen veriler grafik olarak sunulmuştur. 6. Bölüm sonuç bölümüdür. Kentin çeşitli uygarlık dönemlerinde gösterdiği fiziksel gelişmelerin genel bir değerlendirmesini içermektedir. Çalışmada üç ek bulunmaktadır. Ek A' da çeşitli dönemlere ait anıtların kronolojik olarak listeleri ve saptanabildiği ölçüde tarihsel süreç içersindeki durumları (seyirleri) verilmiştir. Ek B' de yararlanılan arşiv belgelerinden tapu tahrir defterleri, cizye defterleri ve vakıf listelerinin ilgili bölümlerinin dökümü ve örnek olması açısından özgün kaynakların bazı sayfaların kopyası ve diğer yazılı kaynaklardan alınan çizim ve levhalar bulunmaktadır. Ek C de kent ile ilgili fotoğraflar, metin içindeki konuların sırasına uygun olarak sunulmuştur.

Abstract:
The city of Amasya lies on the shores of Yeşilırmak (ancient Iris) in north central Anatolia. The pagan city which gained importance at the time of Pontos- Roman struggle became a metropolis of the Byzantine Asia Minor and one of the most important settlements of the Turkish-Islamic Anatolia. It is one of the well- known centres of Anatolian-Turkish history. It is also a noted Anatolian city as the birth place of Strabon. Despite the massive destruction of its buildings in the historical events, Amasya, as one of the "Shehzade Sancak"s (i.e. the city where the Heir to the throne lives) of the Ottoman period preserves a rich monumental heritage of its Turkish past. The aim of this study is to investigate the development of the physical structure of Amasya, whose importance in the Turkish period is conspicuous. My study based on written sources as well as on the material remains, attempts to reconstruct the evolution of the physical structure of the city, especially after the Turkish conquest. In my efforts to reconstruct successive periods I tried to recur to primary written sources as far as I could. The archive documents of the Ottoman period were extensively used. Publications of these documents as still untapped but reliable sources for urban and architectural studies are available for most Anatolian cities. But they were not systematically used in the analyses of urban structure or in comparative studies aiming to match the written data with the actual building texture. This study is a tentative work in this direction. A "master map" of the city with topographic information has been drawn for my study. It is based on the actual maps of İller Bankası, the maps and aerial photographs provided by Harita Genel Müdürlüğü and the other available maps in various publications. They were combined and small amendments were made based on limited instrumental surveys undertaken by myself. For example the Citadel's location was corrected according my survey. Personal surveys of the monuments and actual urban texture were added to complete the "master map" and the description of the city's historical evolution was given on this basic physical layout. The study has six main sections: 1. The aim of the study, the description of the investigation method and the nature of the basic sources. VI2. The structure of the city summarised on the master map which also includes the natural shape of the site. 3. The historical information about the first settlements of the region and the foundation of the city: The name "Amaseia (au,aaeıa)/Amasya (a-*-* U ') has been used consistently on coins and in the primary sources. But the misleading comments on the name of the city and its origin by some local historians resulted in the identification of the Amasya Citadel as Harşene Citadel. This section includes also a discussion of these comments. 4. The description of the urban structure in the pre-Turkish era. Primary sources and physical data related to this period are scarce. The most detailed source of information for antic Amaseia is Strabon who was himself a native of the city. The other sources consist of the relatively short accounts and descriptions of Greek and Latin historians, coins, and list of inscriptions. For the Christian era, the documents available are the church certificates and the accounts of period leaders and saints. An evaluation of these sources and documents related to the Iris valley is published in Studia Pontica. A similar compilation may be found in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques. In addition to these, Ramsay, referring almost to the same primary sources, informs us on the role of the city on the Anatolian plateau, about its place in administrative and religious reorganisations and on the existence of some monuments. Our evaluations covering Pontos, Roman and Byzantine periods are based upon the information given in these sources and on studies of general history. They are illustrated on the city map. The city of Amaseia where the Pontos Kingdom had flourished, stayed as the Kingdom capital until the conquest of Sinope. Even later, it continued to be an important city due its positioning at the junction point of the roads connecting the ports of Sinope and Amisos (Samsun) to the Anatolian hinterland and to the south. In the Roman period the sophisticated network of roads in addition to the fortified castles to control the security of Anatolia was the backbone of Roman economy, and Amaseia also became an important centre. Evidence of titles found on coins demonstrates that Amaseia lived as a flourishing city during the Roman Empire and it kept its appellation of metropolis as long as it was a Roman province. After the third quarter of the fourth century, when the Eastern and Western Churches established their independence and the Empire divided in two, the wealth of the Eastern Church has grown with the rise of the Eastern Empire. During this period urban Anatolia was rich and powerful, and the cities of Northern Anatolia were flourishing accordingly. Amaseia has kept its important position as a religious centre of the Empire and perpetuated its title of metropolis both on religious and administrative grounds. Our knowledge of the physical structure of Amaseia of this period consists mainly -except some ruins- of religious buildings mentioned in the sources. The majority of these buildings are dated before 7th century and are brought vnto our knowledge only in the church records or by the writings of contemporaneous Church Fathers like Eusebius, Eutchius, Teophanes and Gregorius of Nisa. The Turkish Ascendancy Immediately after Malazgirt the Turkish emirs gained the control of Amasya region. At the end of 11th century the major force in the region was the Danishmendis. During the first half of 12th century when the contest of hegemony in Anatolia takes place between Turkish emirs and Byzantines, Amasya is the scene of conflicts between two sides. We have no information about the physical aspect of the city İn that time. Situated on a land where the warriors or the Turkoman nomads were wandering, the city should have been in a rather poor state of well being. We can presume that no major building activities were undertaken. However towards the end of the century, the apparition of the Seljuks of Konia as a new force, and the outcome of the battle of Myriokephalon in 1176 convinced Byzance to accept the de facto situation of Turkish presence in Anatolia. The Seljuks of Konia are now the only political power in the Central and Eastern Anatolia; their building activities consisting mainly in the construction of menzils or caravanserais along the trade routes transformed Anatolian landscape and created a relative security. We see that the city life is enlivened in accordance with the new "trade winds". In Amasya, the building activities of the Turkish period had really gained new drift during these years. A new tide of building activity is also observed during the Mogul occupation. The Yeşilırmak valley where the Moguls reigned without hindrance was more secure and calm than the other parts of Anatolia. When the walls of Konia are being taken down, Amasya saw the construction of the mightiest of its architectural heritage, namely the Tomb of Torumtay, the Gökmedrese and the Bimarhane which are the two important medical schools of Anatolia of the period. At the end of 14th century Amasya was conquered by the Ottomans and lived its most prestigious days until mid- 15th century. Amasya became then the city of the Shehzades (heirs to the throne) and the building activities took a new turn. Taking account of the actually existing of those mentioned in the primary and secondary sources, approximately a hundred new buildings were built during this period. Military successes, conquests of new land and consequently ever increasing tax collection augmented the revenue of the central government and part of this revenue returned to the cities for the buildings of new establishments. Amasya was still on important trade routes, a fact which further increased its share of state revenues. From the second half of the 16th century onwards, Amasya will have difficult years through the suhte and celali disturbances and the Iranian wars. New developments in the West, the discovery of new trade ways, the introduction of the precious metals of America to the market, the regression in the revenues of the Ottoman Empire, subsequent changes in tax collection methods has radically transformed the social and economic structure of the cities. The industrial production methods which were developed in the West has hurt the most important industry of Amasya -namely the textile industry and especially the silk business. New trade Vlllagreements with the West had a fatal effect on Amasya as with the totality of the country. Faced with the machine production of Europe, the production of the city has collapsed almost to nil. Although totally liberated from the control of the state and disastrous for the local production, the commercial traffic in Anatolia has kept alive the dynamism of city life in Amasya served in this by its location on the main roads. Taş Han, the biggest commercial building of the town has been erected at the end of 1 7th century. The transformations of economic situation are reflected in the physical structure of the city. Apart from the commercial buildings of late 17th century and some minor building activity connected with the 19th century military and educational reforms (e.g. building of barracks and schools, enlargement of the streets), no major change in the physical structure of the city occurred. 5. The evolution of the physical structure of the city during the Turkish-Islamic period. Archive documents of the Ottoman period are the primary sources for any evaluation. Unfortunately, documents related to early Turkish period are rare. The most significant and the oldest source is the vakfiye of Halifet Gazi. Other vakfiyes pertaining to the early period of Turkish era offer some clues on the toponomy of the city. Short lists of these are found in Ayverdi. Most of the monuments built in this period are still standing and their inscriptions are first hand historic information for the evaluation of the city's development. A comprehensive inventory of these inscriptions has been made by Uzunçarşılı. The most important sources related to Ottoman period are surveys of title deeds in a province(ta/w tahrir defterleri). These records give the population, the number and structure of districts. Three books related to Amasya exist. The book for Karaman, Rum and Erzurum dated 929/1523 and the book for Amasya dated 1052/1642 are kept in Prime Ministry Archivesin Istanbul. Another survey book for Amasya dated 984/1576 is found in the Archives of the Directorate of Title Deeds at Ankara. The book numbered 387 gives the names of some major monuments together with the inventory of the districts. In my study, the names of the districts mentioned in these books are compared with the ones given by other sources and also with present day names and are to be found on the city map. The district delimitations obtained through the study of these surveys, concerning different periods are far from being complete. But all available data are presented in graphic form and are accompanied by explicative marks. Another important source is the record books for capitation tax (cizye). These records are kept in order to determine the Christian population who was liable directly to the tax collectors of the Treasury. Therefore the information they include is not related to the city in its totality. However they provide valuable information on the existence of districts and their names. Another important source for researchers of urban history and socio-economics of the country is the records of foundations (vakıf defterleri). In these documents the list of foundations in the city, their revenues and their expenses, their employees are IXrecorded. The deciphering of these documents is often difficult and complex. Only experts experienced in archive studies can evaluate them and unravel their content for the use of other researchers. In this study -the difficulty of deciphering taken into account- we confined our work on the documents which give the inventory of foundations and focused on the ones related directly to Amasya. Two of these books dated 1256/1840 and 1000/1688-89 respectively give the inventory of numerous foundations in Amasya. A third one dated 1001/1592-93 lists the employments in some of the buildings of the city. Several documents found in the Prime Ministry Archives consisting of berat, ilâm, istida, inha, takrir (imperial titles of privilege, judicial decrees, petitions, memorandums for promotion or official notes) and the like are also sources for the verification of existence of a given building at a given date. These documents used in conjunction with other written sources were helpful in determining the life story of the monuments which no longer survive. Salnames or city annuals, are documents of late Ottoman period and inform us about the population census figures, the monuments and the general features of the city. Travel accounts were second to archive documents in giving clues on the urban structure. One of the first travellers who visited Amasya is Ibn-i Batuta. In his accounts rich in information about other Anatolian cities, details on Amasya are almost non-existent. Busbecq who was the Austrian ambassador had to undertake the voyage to Amasya in order to be received by Soliman the Magnificent. Busbecq and his companion Dernschwam included in their accounts their impressions of Amasya. Evliya Çelebi whose itinerary comprised Amasya gives the most detailed account of the city at 17th century [24, pp 183-94]. The other travellers of the 17th century are the Polish Simeon (1613) and Tavernier (1664). The rest are visitors of the 18th century or later. Among them are Tournefort (1701), Katip Çelebi (1732), Morier (1813), Texier (1834-36), Hamilton (1835-37), Perrot (1861), Feruhan Bey (1868). Apart the documents mentioned above a further source is the monographs written or compiled by local historians. Amasya is one of the luckiest cities as regards to its monographs. The two most important studies are the "Belâbil er-Râsiyye fi Riyâz Mesâ' il el-Amâsiyye" of the beginning of the 19th century by Mustafa Vazıh and "The History of Amasya" which was written by Hüseyin Hüsameddin Abdioğlu at the beginning of this century. The contents of the first volume by Hüseyin Hüsameddin relative to the city itself and its monuments are particularly valuable for architectural historians and urban historians. The fact that the author who used.numerous archive documents did not mention his sources is unfortunate. The second and third volumes deal with the political history of Anatolia and particularly of Amasya. However the historical sources that he mentions are not sufficient for the physical history of the city. Furthermore his capricious interpretation of the sources and his extremely subjective evaluations of the pre-Turkish period necessitates acautious use of Hüseyin Hüsameddin's writings. It must be emphasised that the tendency to attribute all political and cultural facts to Amasya is especially deceptive. Therefore I refrained from an extensive use of the information included in his work other than facts regarding the Ottoman period and some of his direct observations. A third monograph on Amasya is the "Illustrated Amasya" (Resimli Amasya) by A. Demiray. And the last local study I will mention is the "History of Amasya" by 0. F. Olcay. This manuscript has never been published. It mostly repeats what M. Vazıh and H. Hüsameddin has said, contradicts them on some details, and includes citations from Mirkât al-Cihâd, i.e. indirectly from Danism endnâme. 6. In the conclusion I tried to give a short and general account of the physical development of the city of Amasya in its recorded history emphasising the Turkish period. This study has three addenda. Addendum A is the chronological list of all known buildings and their state of preservation and use during different periods. Addendum B includes the related parts of title-deed books, capitation tax records and pious foundation records. It includes also copies of pages from primary sources, plus drawings and plates. Addendum C contains a limited number of photographs of the city and its monuments. XI