Osmanlı İmparatorluk Çadırlarında Mimari İfade

Abstract

Çadır geleneğinin Türk tarihi içindeki sürekliliği ve önemi bilinen bir olgudur. Günümüzde çadırlar artık sadece kimi göçebe topluluklar tarafından kullanılıyorsa da görsel ve yazılı kaynaklardan da bilindiği üzere Türk tarihi içinde çadırlar saray erkanı için de 20. yüzyıla kadar varlık göstermiştir. Çadırlar kimi zamanlarda savaş alanlarında İstanbul sarayının bir benzerini oluşturmak için kullanılmış, kimi zamanlarda çeşitli gösteri, kutlama ve törenlere bir arka plan oluşturmak ve padişah ve çevresine bir sahne yaratmak için kullanılmıştır. Çadırlar Türk boylarıyla birlikte Orta Asya‟dan Anadolu‟ya, oradan da Osmanlı fetihleriyle Viyana yakınlarına kadar geniş bir coğrafyada varlık göstermiştir. Bu yapılar birer sanat veya zanaat ürünü olmalarının yanında aynı zamanda birer mimari eser olarak da nitelendirilebilir. Bu noktada genel anlamda çadırların dekoratif ve mekansal bağlamlarda sabit mimariyle olan ortaklıkları olduğu düşünülmüş ve bu konu tez kapsamında irdelenmiştir. Kimi durumlar ortaklık olarak nitelendirilebilirken kimi durumlar ise sadece benzerlikleri ifade etmektedır. Ayrıca çadır ve yapı üretimlerindeki kimi eş alışkanlıklar, farklı iki ürün grubunun ortaklığı olmaktan çok birbirine eş bütünsel bir algının farklı malzeme ve tekniklerle üretilmiş son ürünleri olarak değerlendirilebilir. Ortaklıkların dekoratif ve yapısal olmak üzere iki başlık altında gruplanarak çözümlenebileceği düşünülmüştür. Çözümlemeler, bu iki başlık içinde revak, baldaken ve örtü gibi elemanlar ile dekorasyonla ilgili çeşitli alt durumlar temelinde ele alınmıştır. Ancak bunun için ilk olarak bugüne ulaşan ve Türkiye ve Avrupa‟daki çeşitli müze ve kurumlarda korunmakta olan çadırlardan bir seçkiye karar verilmiş ve seçki içindeki çadırlar mekansal ve dekoratif özellikleriyle detaylıca betimlenmiştir. Böylelikle çadırlar bütünsel olarak algılanmış ve karşılaştırmalara olanak verecek şekilde çözümlenmiştir. Yapılan tahliller neticesinde benzerlik ve ortaklıkların hangi alt durumlar hususunda izlenebileceğine karar verilmiştir. Alt başlıklar yansıttıkları durumlara göre sınıflandırılarak daha önce de belirtildiği üzere yapısal ve dekoratif olmak üzere iki ana başlık altında ifade bulmuştur. Karşılaştırmalar üzerinden yapılan değerlendirmelerde temel olarak çadırlar ve günümüze ulaşan yapılar ele alındıysa da Osmanlı görsel kaynakları da göz önüne alınmıştır. Özellikle de mekan, kullanıcı ve yapılar arasındaki ilişkiyi sahneleyen kitap resimleri bugüne ulaşmayan çadırlar hakkında bilgi vermenin yanında sabit mimari yapılarla çadırlar arasındaki ortak kullanımları inceleme noktasında yararlı olmuştur. Çadırlardaki durumların karşılıkları özellikle Topkapı Sarayı olmak üzere İstanbul‟daki imparatorluk yapılarında aranmıştır. Daha bütünsel bir bakış için diğer sanat ve zanaat dallarından bir kısmı da gözden geçirilmiştir. El işlemeleri, çiniler, duvar resimleri ve kalem işleri bu noktada not edilebilir. Tüm bu inceleme, karşılaştırma ve değerlendirmeler sonucunda hem genel kurguda hem de ayrıntılar ölçeğinde ortaklıklar saptanmış, tüm bu durumlar görsel bütünlüğe dayalı bir yaklaşımla ifade edilmiştir.

The importance and the continuity of tent making and usage in Turkish culture are very well-known phenomena. Turks transferred the tradition of “tent culture” with them from Central Asia to Asia Minor and as far as to Vienna by the Ottoman counquests. Even if the tents are only used by some nomadic tribes in Anatolia nowadays, as one can easyly find out from visual and written sources, the tents were used by the palace until the first decades of the 20th century. The tents were used to create the palace settlement for the sultan and his retunie during the war campaigns especially until the 18th century when there were less campaigns and the sultan did not lead the army anymore. After then, the main purpose of the imperial tents were creating a background for some ceremonies and celebrations. But through all these centuries, tents were used to create a scene for the sultan to represent his sovereignty. Because of these facts that can be followed from the sources, it is not possible to define the tents only as artifacts or artisanship products, one can identify them as architectural designs as well. In that point, some similarities are predicted in decorative and spatial aspects between the „immobile‟ architecture and tent architecture. These predictions have been pursued in this study as the major topic and some common aspects of architecture and tent production have been identified. It was possible to consider the outcomes of these two different production spheres as products of a common approach of space and decoration even if they have been produced with different materials and alternative methods. The method of this study focuses on comparisons. And generally comparisons have been made between tents and existing buildings, as well as the Ottoman visual sources. Especially Topkapi Palace and some other imperial buildings are chosen for the comparisons, as tents are thougnht to be the mobile form of them. And it is shownn that these buildings releaves certain common features with the tent architecture. The Ottoman miniatures are examined not only to compare the nonextant buildings with tents but also to examine the similar functions, as miniatures shows how both tents and buildings were used at their time. The similarities have been examined under two titles as „structural‟ and „decorative‟. Selected samples of the tents -which are preserved in the Turkish and European museums and the other collections- have been described considering spatial and decorative characteristics. These descriptions led to categorize the similarities as subtopics which are placed under the main titles, structural and decorative. For the structural similarities, comparisons are made under theree subtopics: arcades, canopies and door and window apertures. Arcades which are generally seen on the interior surfaces of the tents are examined as the visual representations of the built ones. Imperial mausolea are investigated firstly for this case as they present common spatial attitudes with tents directly. It has been shown that the tents can be perceived as reduced dimensioned versions. Also the imperial mosques and Turkish baths are xviii also compared with tents to show the similarities in different scales as well. But also some other Ottoman artifacts such as tiles, praying rugs etc. are examined to perceive and place the arcade usage in tent decoration. Also as the details of the arches have more lavish expressions compared to the usual arches in Ottoman architecture, some similar arch types with tents are pointed as well. And at the end of this part, some pre-Ottoman examples are noted to show the historical perspective. As a second subtopic, canopies are examined under two other subtopics. Adjacent canopies and canopies that are not attached to an other building have been grouped under different titles. Different groups are evaluated regarding their spatial and decorative aspects as well as their functions including historical backgrounds. The palace buildings or some pieces such as gondolas, thrones from the imperial collections are mutually studied in order to comprehend the canopies and tents as their mobile forms. Especially some scenes that are represented in miniatures and some buildings in the Topkapi Palace complex are detailedy examined in order to have some persuasive conclusions about the relation between the mobile and immobile architectures. Window and door apertures were the last subtopic under the main topic, sturctural. As these apertures are some of the most basic and essential building elements, searching for the resemblancres brought out some conclusive results. Studying on these building elements has especially shown how the tents and their decorations represent built architecture and their details. The apertures from the buildings and the tents have been investigated regarding to each other as their decorations present the same notion. From the most basic apertures to their representations on the tents and the built architecture itself and the details over the tiles, window grills etc. are expressed mutually to have an opinion about the big picture. Second topic is based on decorative similarities. As tents and built architectural pieces have different building / preparation techniques, the structural similarities are generally up to the visual expression. Even if it is shown that they are the products of the same notion; from the structural point of view, the tents seem to „copy‟ the built architecture. Not because of the different structural systems -actually even if the systems seem to be different they have a similar approach- but because of ornamentation of tents which represents the structural elements. But decorative similarities lead to some different directions. Even if it is hard to mention about a canonic concept in Ottoman architecture, there are some details that can be relatively easyly followed. As it will be shown by the subtopics the tents and the built architecture seem to be closer from the point of decoration. General concept of decoration is discussed as the first subtopic. By the descriptions of the tents which have been made in the first part, some general approaches about the ornamentation elements are examined. By the examples especially from the Harem of Topkapi Palace, similarities are shown from different periods about the resembling concepts between tents and these buildings. Not only the motives but also the general emplacement of the ornamemtation elements are studied. Secondly, interior surface of the (roof) covering is examined as an other subtopic. As one of the most important architectural element of Ottoman architecture is dome, the importance of the domes must be remembered not only in a spatial sense but also because of the meaning of dome in architecure. Meaning of the dome and its relation with the tents is briefly explained in the part for the canopies but as this is not the topic of the study, it is just mentioned as a reminder. It is possible to categorize the xix ornamentation programmes of the tent roof coverings into two. In the first one there is the arcade image applied on the roof -in which the arcade units are adjusted to the roof geometer. And in the second type there is a circular motive in the center and semicircles or quadrants around it with some other motives. As one who has observed the Ottoman architecture can easyly perceive, the resemblance is obvious. So in this part these are explained detailedly. And as the last subtopic, pastoral depictions are studied. It is explained in different chapters as well that tent architecture has not evolved as much as built architecture. There are several reasons for this. But the main reasons are purpose of the tents and their spatial simplicity. Also because of its preparation method and simple technology, there is no possiblity to play with the space that much. Because of these whole study puts aside the evaluation of the built architeture in a way. Even if some situations about the different tent types about their function and form trough the centuries are stated and comparisons between the tents and built architecture focus on the same period between each other, generally the study does not stick to the precise dates. Also for the pastoral depictions, depictions with European style are examined. Even if there are miniatures and some European style depictions around the palace enviroment, depictions are seen after the classical era in Ottoman architecture. In this part firstly, the history of depictions in Ottoman art has been explained briefly and then comparisons between the wall paintings and the embroideries creating a pastoral image in the tent decoration are done. The tent decoration is similar with the wall paintings and architectural decoration but after all the tents are embroideries. So to place these tent depictions in Ottoman art a motive -tent- has been chosen as a case study. So tent as a motive has been followed in different Ottoman arts such as tiles and hand embroideries to have an holistic perception. Finally, in this study some general information about Turkish / Ottoman tent culture with its historical background has been given. From the earliest Ottoman imperial tents from the 17th century -which could be preserved until today- until the latest examples which are from the early 20th century are examined to have a consistent approach. Even if the general structure of the study is based on the similarities and mutual characteristics of the tents and Ottoman architectural pieces, some diverse features are also noted. As tents and built architecture have different evolution processes, it is possible to consider these two different „architecture‟s in their own contexts. To gain some more stringent conclusions, roots and evolution processes of both architectures must be examined mutually. After all as structural and decorative similarities support to consider immobile architecture and tent architecture as outcomes of a common notion of space creating, stands out as an appropriate approach. Consequently, both on general scale and on detail level, many common attitudes have been identified between „mobile‟ and „built‟ architecture. By some deeper studies some other conclusions would fine some blurry points of this study.