A 19th Century Restoration of a Classical Period Ottoman Mosque in Istanbul: Fatih Mesih Mehmed Paşa Mosque

Mesih Mehmed Paşa Camii’nin 19. Yüzyıl Onarımı

Abstract

Located in Fatih district, Mesih Mehmed Paşa Mosque was built by Hadım Mesih Mehmed Paşa, one of the grand viziers of Sultan Murad III (1574-1595). According to the inscription on the main entrance, construction was completed in the year H. 994 (1585/1586). This article aims to expose the different techniques applied in the extensive repair of this classical Ottoman monument and its dependencies in 1873. The second cost estimation report of this repair which provides valuable information on the implementations and materials is analysed to understand the approach in the 19th century to a classical Ottoman building. The analysis also helps to understand and evaluate the later additions to the monument and to comprehend the superimposed periods. In the 19th century, the survey reports reveal that the first stage of the repair process is the “formation of repair request.” The second stage involves the preparation of the “initial cost estimation report.” The initial planning, including the estimated costs of all planned implementations is recorded in a detailed initial cost estimation report. Construction or repair activities in the 19th century are carried out through tenders, and the contracts for construction works are awarded to the lowest bidder through competitive bidding. In open bidding, contractor candidates (kalfa) who offered the highest discount would undertake the
implementation work. At the end of the construction, a final survey would be conducted and the final part of the second costestimation report would calculate the total construction cost and identify the additional implementations not included in the initial survey. According to the second cost estimation report (1873) of Mesih Mehmet Paşa Mosque, an initial report was prepared for the building, and the total expenses were determined as 95,316.5 kuruş (piaster). The price was reduced through competitive bidding, and the implementation work was undertaken by Haci Anesti Kalfa with a bid of 74,200 kuruş. After the completion of the implementation, a second report was prepared, and it was discovered that there were additional implementations exceeding the initially estimated price. As a result, an additional 25,056.5 kuruş was added to the amount to be paid to Haci Anesti, reaching a total of 99,256.5 kuruş. The additional works amounting to 12,100 kuruş were not included in Haci Anesti’s contract, and they
were carried out “as entrusted.” Examining the distribution of the total construction cost according to spatial distribution, it is observed that the majority of the expenses in the restoration is allocated to the mosque with a percentage of 79% (90,482.5 kuruş). The highest amount, 26,321 kuruş (29%), was for plastering, painting, and hand-drawn ornamentation works. Timber roof works including the tiles accounted for 19,207 kuruş (21%), the renewal of lead roofing accounted for 13,297 kuruş (15%), and iron joinery for 10,791 kuruş (12%). In addition to these works, there were also expenses related to timber painting, timber joinery, the construction of a new timber gallery, gilding works, and portable lighting elements as part of the mosque’s repair. Various approaches were adopted regarding the use of materials and the implementation of original details. Unlike original 16th century details, iron laths and large-sized glasses were used in the exterior layers of upper floor windows. Later additions such as tiles covering the timber roof of the portico instead of the original lead covering were respected in the repair by implementing the same detail. For the gypsum inner frames of upper floor windows, renovations in line with the original details described as “kadimi üzre” (according to the old) and “emsali misillü” (similar to its example) were preferred without considering the construction difficulties. There was no concern for a stylistic unity between the classical period details and some new additions which are described as “nev resim” (new style) such as new hand-drawn ornamentations and a new wooden gallery for muezzin. When the 19th century repair cost estimation reports and archival photographs are evaluated together in terms of implementations, it is evident that later additions that were integrated with the “original” structure were completely eliminated in the restorations carried out in the 1950s-1960s, as a sense of unity of style prevailed. One of the reasons for this approach could be the fact that some practices theoreticalized with the 1964 Venice Charter in Europe started to be included in legal regulations in Turkey only after 1973. At the present time, archives are digitized, access to information is facilitated, legal regulations for conservation of cultural heritage, numerous international charters, conventions and other documents are considered as guiding principles. Thus it is crucial for conservation architects and experts to carry out careful work to avoid irreversible mistakes. The valuable information contained in the 19th century records sheds light on the period’s preservation understanding, traditional conservation techniques, building materials and general terminology. These should be considered as data that enlightens the history of cultural heritage.