1 Introduction
The period commonly referred to as the “Classical Era” of Ottoman architecture spans from the second quarter of the 16th century to the mid-17th century. This phase, predominantly shaped by the works of the renowned architect Mimar Sinan and his contemporaries and successors, represents an era in which Ottoman architecture achieved its most sophisticated technological and aesthetic expressions (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Goodwin, 1971).
Ottoman classical period mosque architecture was primarily developed within an Istanbul-centered architectural discourse, where it gradually evolved into a “normative model.” The fundamental components of this model include a centralized domed plan, a courtyard with arcaded porticoes, a monumental entrance axis, proportional spatial arrangements, and highly refined stone craftsmanship (
Necipoğlu, 1995;
Kuban, 2007).
Furthermore, the symbolic function of architecture was significantly reinforced during this period; mosques were constructed not only as spaces of worship but also as spatial embodiments of imperial ideology and centralized authority (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Rizvi, 2015). The mosques of Şehzade, Süleymaniye, and the pinnacle example Selimiye, built in Istanbul and Edirne, exemplify this normative model at its most accomplished form (
Goodwin, 1971) (Figs. 1 and 2). These buildings also represent the aesthetic and technical zenith of Ottoman architectural thought. As Gülru Necipoğlu emphasizes, the architecture of this period was conceptualized around an understanding of “mathematical aesthetics” and “geometric rationality,” encoding this ideal architectural language as the imperial center’s stylistic identity (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013).
During this process, Istanbul became the primary locus of architectural production; the style developed here was subsequently disseminated as an “ideal model” throughout the empire’s various regions (
Kuban, 2007). However, in the process of its transmission to the provinces, local building traditions, material resources, and socio-political contexts played significant roles, resulting in architectural works that, while drawing upon the central “classical” form, displayed distinctive typological variations (
Hillenbrand, 1994;
Grabar, 1987).
Despite this, much of the existing scholarship remains heavily centered on the Istanbul-based normative model, with provincial adaptations often regarded as “secondary” or “incomplete.” Yet, these localized classical architectural practices that evolved in the provinces are of great importance for understanding the multidimensional and heterogeneous character of Ottoman architectural culture. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the Şehzade Mosque in Istanbul represents a paradigmatic example of the centralized domed plan typology characteristic of the Ottoman Classical Period. The mosque features a square prayer hall covered by a central dome supported by semi-domes on four sides, surrounded by a courtyard with arcaded porticoes. The plan demonstrates strict geometric proportionality and spatial symmetry, reflecting the imperial architectural ideology based on centralization and mathematical aesthetics (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). With dimensions approximately 47 m × 52 m for the main hall, the structure exemplifies the scale and refinement of imperial-sponsored mosque architecture.
In this study, the term Anatolia refers to the core western and central territories of the Ottoman Empire located within the present-day boundaries of Turkey, excluding the imperial capital Istanbul as well as the Arab provinces, the Balkans, and the eastern frontier zones. This definition includes regions such as Bithynia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and the Konya plain―areas historically marked by diverse building traditions and varying material geographies. Accordingly, provincial variations have been identified through comparative analyses of architectural plans, material use, structural techniques, and patronage patterns within these defined Anatolian subregions.
1.1 Dissemination of the classical model into the provinces and dynamics of regional diversification
The vast geographical expanse of the Ottoman Empire inevitably gave rise to pronounced distinctions between the architectural practices of the imperial center and those of the provinces. While the Classical Period mosque architecture was developed in Istanbul as an idealized form, the dissemination of this model into the provinces did not occur as a simple, direct transfer (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). On the contrary, in provincial contexts, this model encountered diverse local building traditions, material conditions, sociopolitical settings, and profiles of craftsmen, which collectively generated various forms of adaptation (
Goodwin, 1971;
Rizvi, 2015).
First and foremost, there were marked differences between Istanbul and the provinces in terms of construction technologies and the profiles of master builders. The imperial architects (hassa mimarları) engaged in major külliye (complex) projects in Istanbul were generally highly educated, possessed advanced knowledge of geometry, and employed sophisticated construction techniques (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). By contrast, mosques built in Anatolian provinces were predominantly executed by local craftsmen or by master builders temporarily dispatched from Istanbul (
Kuban, 2007). This situation often resulted in simplified spatial planning and the adoption of more pragmatic solutions, especially regarding roofing systems.
A second major difference lay in material usage and technological possibilities. In Istanbul’s monumental mosques, high-quality ashlar masonry, brick-arch systems, large domes with pendentives, and elaborate decorative programs were commonly employed (
Necipoğlu, 1995;
Goodwin, 1971). In contrast, Anatolian mosques predominantly utilized locally available and more economical materials such as rubble stone, timber, and brick (
Hillenbrand, 1994;
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). This divergence directly influenced roofing systems: while large centralized domes were preferred in Istanbul, smaller domes or timber-roofed solutions became more prevalent in provincial contexts (Fig. 3).
A third notable distinction was evident in patterns of patronage. While classical period mosques in Istanbul were typically commissioned by the sultan or high-ranking state officials (grand viziers, valide sultans, etc.) (
Rizvi, 2015), many classical period mosques in the provinces were sponsored by regional governors, viziers, judges, or wealthy merchant families. This variance in patronage significantly impacted the scale of the structures, their decorative programs, and their degree of socio-cultural representation.
In conclusion, the “classical period mosque model” developed in Istanbul underwent significant transformations when reinterpreted within the specific local contexts of the provinces, resulting in an architectural practice characterized by diversified plan typologies, roofing systems, and modes of cultural representation. This dimension of architectural production constitutes an important yet underexplored aspect of Ottoman architectural history.
In this study, the term province does not refer to specific administrative units (such as eyalet or sancak), but rather to Anatolian regions outside the imperial capital that exhibit distinguishable architectural, material, and spatial traditions. These regions―such as Bithynia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, or the Konya plain―are conceptualized based on geographic, constructional, and typological diversity, rather than formal bureaucratic divisions. Similarly, the use of the term regional diversification refers to spatial, representational, and material variations shaped by local dynamics, rather than rigid territorial categories.
1.2 The literature gap: lack of systematic study on the typologies of Classical Period Ottoman mosques in Anatolia
The historiography of Ottoman architecture, particularly in relation to Classical Period mosque architecture, has largely been shaped through an Istanbul-centered interpretive framework. Dominant paradigms in the field have long focused on the architectural school of Sinan and the monumental architecture of the imperial capital, as seen in the seminal works of leading scholars such as
Necipoğlu et al. (2013),
Kuban (2007), and
Goodwin (1971). While these studies have undoubtedly made profound and foundational contributions to the understanding of Ottoman architecture, their emphasis on “high architecture” has often marginalized the typological diversity and local dynamics of provincial architectural production (
Rizvi, 2015;
Hillenbrand, 1994).
As a result, Classical Period mosques constructed outside of Istanbul have frequently been regarded either as “imperfect reflections” of the central model or relegated to the category of “secondary architectural practices.” Yet, the Classical period mosque typologies that emerged across the Anatolian landscape―particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries―exhibited distinct forms in terms of spatial layout, roofing systems, material usage, and representational functions. This local diversity demonstrates that Ottoman architecture was not a homogeneous cultural product, but rather a multilayered and geographically differentiated practice (Fig. 4).
In recent years, international studies focusing on center-periphery relations and architectural differentiation (
Rizvi, 2015;
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007;
Blair and Bloom, 2009) have begun to highlight the significance of this gap. However, a systematic typological classification and a comprehensive regional architectural mapping of Classical Period mosques in Anatolia are still lacking. In particular, there is a dearth of in-depth comparative analyses, studies on their geographical distribution, and explorations of their interactions with local architectural traditions.
This article seeks to address this gap by illuminating the multidimensional nature of Classical period mosque production in Anatolia. Within this framework, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque, examined here as a unique typological example among provincial Classical period mosques, offers an original contribution to the scholarly discourse.
1.3 Research aim and original contribution
This study aims to systematically examine the provincial applications of Ottoman Classical Period mosque architecture within the framework of center–periphery differentiation. As emphasized in the introduction, the dominant Istanbul-centric paradigm in the existing literature often presents Ottoman classical architecture as a singular and normative expression (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Kuban, 2007). As a result, critical questions regarding how Classical period mosque architecture in Anatolia interacted with local building traditions, diversified in spatial schemes, and generated alternative roofing typologies have remained largely underexplored (
Goodwin, 1971;
Rizvi, 2015).
While the architectural achievements of the Classical Period―particularly those centered in Istanbul―have been extensively theorized, scholarly attention to their provincial counterparts remains notably limited. Most existing studies tend to view non-capital mosques as derivative or simplified versions of imperial prototypes, overlooking their potential as meaningful architectural variations shaped by distinct regional conditions (
Grabar, 1987;
Rizvi, 2015). Furthermore, a review of academic sources such as the regional surveys in Konya (
Toktaş, 2016), Kırklareli and Tekirdağ (
Yılmaz, 2019), or Bilecik (
Bozkurt, 2007) reveals that these works are often confined to catalog-like documentation, with minimal critical engagement in terms of spatial typology or regional synthesis. Others, such as
Akın et al. (2022) and
Borak (2024), isolate aesthetic or decorative components―such as symmetry or ceramic ornamentation―without addressing broader architectural questions.
Moreover, there remains a significant absence of systematic typological classification for Classical Period mosques in Anatolia, as well as a lack of inquiry into the socio-cultural, material, and technological factors that shaped their formation. This gap hinders a comprehensive understanding of how architectural forms evolved and adapted across the diverse Ottoman geography.
To address this void, the present study offers a critical and original investigation into hybrid mosque typologies and regional architectural diversity, using the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque as a focused case study. The primary objective is to document the typological variety found in Anatolian Classical period mosques and to construct a comparative framework that considers not only their divergence from the centralized imperial model but also their internal regional differences, shaped by local traditions, materials, and construction techniques (
Hillenbrand, 1994;
Blair and Bloom, 2009).
The second aim of this study is to offer an in-depth analysis of the architectural characteristics of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque as a distinctive example of provincial reinterpretation. With its rare combination of a domed portico (son cemaat yeri) and a timber-roofed prayer hall, the mosque stands out as a representative of hybrid typologies in Ottoman Classical architecture. Despite its formal coherence and regional grounding, this typology remains insufficiently examined in the literature, particularly within the broader discourse on Anatolian provincial mosques.
Among the many hybrid examples encountered across Anatolia, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque was selected due to its clearly legible spatial composition, its integrated layout with a roadside külliye, and its unique combination of a domed front portico and a timber-ceilinged prayer hall―an architectural pairing that remains rare and underdocumented in the literature. Unlike other hybrid models, which often reflect ad hoc or transitional characteristics, the Vezirhan Mosque presents a formally coherent and contextually grounded reinterpretation of classical ideals. Moreover, the availability of detailed architectural documentation and its well-preserved state make it a suitable and analytically rich case for investigating provincial adaptations within a typological and representational framework.
In conclusion, the study seeks to broaden the understanding of Classical Period mosque architecture in Anatolia by highlighting its regional diversity, material adaptation, and typological innovation. Through the case of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque, it demonstrates how provincial examples contributed meaningfully to the architectural and cultural spectrum of the Ottoman Empire.
While the article presents multiple comparative examples, these serve primarily as supporting typological references. The analytical and methodological focus remains centered on the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque, which is treated as a representative case to explore broader provincial patterns. The title’s phrasing as ‘The Case of Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque’ is deliberately chosen to highlight the study’s focus on a specific architectural example, rather than proposing a universal model. This case-centered structure allows for a more detailed analysis of regional typological features and representational strategies.”
2 Methodology
This study adopts a dual research strategy that combines field-based architectural documentation with archival and comparative typological analysis. The methodological approach varies according to the nature and accessibility of the case studies included.
For the Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque in Vezirhan, an in-depth site-based investigation was conducted. Between 2020 and 2022, the author personally carried out the measured survey (röleve), restitution, and restoration projects of the mosque within the framework of conservation planning approved by local heritage authorities. The survey process included photogrammetric documentation, stratigraphic analysis of structural elements, and a layer-by-layer architectural assessment of additions and repairs. This on-site research was supported by historical documentation and construction techniques observable in situ, allowing for a reliable interpretive restitution of the building’s original typology and its later modifications.
For the comparative analysis involving other provincial Classical Period mosques in Anatolia, the methodology primarily relied on archival research and literature-based evaluation. Published architectural surveys, academic theses, photographic records, and typological studies formed the basis of data collection. These sources included both catalog-based documentation (e.g.,
Toktaş, 2016;
Yılmaz, 2019) and more specialized architectural analyses (e.g.,
Bozkurt, 2007;
Akın et al., 2022). In this phase, attention was given to structural schemes, roofing typologies, material usage, and spatial configurations as recorded in secondary sources.
The analytical strategy of the study is structured in three stages:
A. Typological classification of the provincial Classical period mosques based on plan schemes and roofing systems;
B. Comparative spatial analysis between the Vezirhan mosque and other case studies, identifying hybrid patterns and regional deviations;
C. Interpretive synthesis, drawing connections between architectural variations and broader cultural-geographical factors such as resource availability, construction expertise, and socio-political context.
This mixed-method approach enables the study to integrate first-hand empirical insights from the Vezirhan site with a systematic evaluation of broader architectural trends across provincial Ottoman territories.
3 Findings and analysis
The plan schema of Ottoman Classical Period mosque architecture was shaped around a centralized domed spatial concept developed in Istanbul. This spatial concept represents a structural arrangement inspired by the Byzantine model of Hagia Sophia and was systematically advanced during the era of Mimar Sinan (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Goodwin, 1971). The mosques of Şehzade (1548), Süleymaniye (1558), and Selimiye (1575) represent the pinnacle of this development.
In these monuments, the main prayer space is defined by a fully centralized dome, supported by semi-domes, arch systems, and symmetrically arranged side spaces (
Necipoğlu, 1995;
Kuban, 2007). In contrast, the Classical Period mosque plans implemented in Anatolia often exhibit simplified and pragmatic versions of this centralized schema. Factors such as available materials and the profiles of craftsmen directly influenced the plan solutions of these provincial structures.
One of the most characteristic features of Ottoman Classical Period mosques is the technical and aesthetic sophistication of their roofing systems. In Istanbul’s Classical period mosques, this sophistication is particularly evident in the skillful use of large centralized domes (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). The Süleymaniye and Selimiye mosques represent the perfected examples of Ottoman dome technology. In these structures, a large pendentive-supported dome defines the central space and directs spatial perception upward (
Goodwin, 1971). Additionally, these buildings exhibit complex roofing compositions supported by arch systems, semi-domes, and side iwans (
Necipoğlu, 1995;
Kuban, 2007).
In contrast, the roofing systems of Classical Period mosques constructed in Anatolia were often simplified or localized due to the lack of access to advanced construction technologies and limitations in local materials (
Hillenbrand, 1994;
Rizvi, 2015). As a result, roofing systems constitute one of the most pronounced differences between Classical period mosques in Istanbul and those in Anatolia. The technologically advanced domed roofing systems developed in the capital were frequently hybridized or adapted in the provinces to local building traditions and material constraints (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007;
Rizvi, 2015).
In this context, four main tendencies can be observed:
A. Centralized (multi-domed) plans: This tendency is exemplified by structures such as the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque in Erzurum (1562) and the Sultan Selim Mosque in Konya (
Toktaş, 2016). However, these domes were generally constructed on a smaller scale and with structurally simplified designs compared to their Istanbul counterparts (Fig. 5(b)).
B. Single Central-Domed Plans: This typology appears in early Classical and transitional period examples such as the Behram Pasha Mosque in Diyarbakır and the Rüstem Pasha Mosque in Tekirdağ (Fig. 5(a)).
C. Timber-posted, timber-roofed examples: The timber-posted and timber-roofed plan typology is a significant expression of provincial construction traditions in Classical Period Ottoman mosques, particularly in Konya and its surrounding regions. In these mosques, a timber-post-supported flat or pitched roof was preferred over a central dome (
Toktaş, 2016). This practice was directly related to the availability of local materials, construction techniques, and climatic considerations. Examples include the Doğanhisar Grand Mosque and the Kadınhanı Hacı Mehmetli Mosque. These mosques typically exhibit a nearly square or rectangular plan, with an interior covered by a flat or pitched timber roof supported by timber posts (
Toktaş, 2016). The development of this typology is closely linked to the local construction economy and craftsmanship traditions. Moreover, these structures can be interpreted as simplified and functional provincial adaptations of the centralized domed plan.
D. Hybrid plans with timber-roofed interiors and domed porticoes: The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque represents a unique example of this type. In this mosque, a timber-roofed interior was employed, while the portico (son cemaat yeri) was designed with a dome. This structure vividly illustrates how the classical plan schema could merge with local building culture in the provinces to produce original forms (Fig. 5(c)) (Table 1).
These differences reveal that Ottoman Classical Period architecture did not develop as a monolithic model in the provinces, but rather as a localized and diversified architectural language. The variations observed in plan layouts and roofing systems are significant not only from an architectural perspective but also in terms of cultural representation. While the absolute central symmetry of Istanbul’s Classical Period mosques embodied the spatial representation of sultanic ideology (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013), the more flexible and localized spatial configurations of Anatolian mosques offered architectural forms that served the needs and representational aspirations of provincial elites and local communities.
3.1 Material and constructional differences
Material usage and construction techniques are key determinants of architectural identity in Ottoman Classical Period mosques. In Istanbul―particularly in large imperial-sponsored külliye complexes―buildings were constructed using the finest materials, achieving both aesthetic and technical excellence (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Goodwin, 1971). The primary materials employed in the capital included high-quality ashlar masonry, specially fired bricks, marble cladding, and colored stone inlays (
Kuban, 2007). In addition, advanced stone and brick bonding techniques were used for pendentive dome transitions and high arch systems (
Necipoğlu, 1995).
A.
Stone usage: In many Classical Period mosques in Anatolia, rubble stone or roughly dressed stone blocks were preferred instead of finely cut ashlar masonry (
Goodwin, 1971). For example, the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque in Erzurum prominently employs local basalt stone. In contrast, the major monuments in Istanbul typically feature marble and finely cut ashlar facades (Fig. 6).
B.
Use of timber: Timber was widely used in Anatolia for both structural and decorative purposes, with this trend being particularly evident in roofing systems. The timber-ceilinged interior of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque is one of the most distinctive and original examples of this tendency. This solution emerged from the hybridization of the classical plan schema with regional timber-building traditions in areas where stone dome construction was less prevalent (
Rizvi, 2015). Other important examples of timber usage include the Doğanhisar Grand Mosque and the Kadınhanı Hacı Mehmetli Mosque in Konya (Fig. 7).
C.
Construction techniques: While advanced dome transition systems and complex load-bearing structures were employed in Istanbul (
Necipoğlu, 1995), more pragmatic construction solutions were developed in the provinces. In many provincial mosques, structural stability was achieved through simple arches, wall buttresses, and timber tie beams (
Hillenbrand, 1994).
In the provincial Anatolian context, roofing systems evolved into diverse structural types due to the use of local materials, regional construction traditions, and varying scales of patronage. Based on field observations and comparative plan analyses, the roofing systems identified in this study have been categorized into four typological groups (Table 2).
In conclusion, the material and constructional differences clearly demonstrate how the provincial applications of Ottoman Classical architecture merged with local building cultures to produce distinctive spatial experiences. These differences also played a fundamental role in shaping the unique architectural identities of provincial Classical Period mosques (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007;
Rizvi, 2015).
3.2 Geographical variations and regional building traditions
The Anatolian geography, in terms of its natural, cultural, and economic diversity, has been one of the most heterogeneous regions of the Ottoman Empire. This diversity was directly reflected in architectural production, giving rise to numerous regional architectural traditions―particularly within the context of Classical Period mosque architecture (
Kuban, 2007;
Goodwin, 1971). The dissemination of the centralized normative model from Istanbul into Anatolia occurred in interaction with these local building cultures, resulting in typological examples that varied according to geographic context (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Rizvi, 2015).
Broadly speaking, Classical Period mosque architecture in Anatolia exhibits four main regional tendencies. This regional differentiation demonstrates that Classical period mosque architecture in Anatolia was not uniform, but rather diversified according to geographical, cultural, and material conditions.
Within this diversity, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque represents a unique example in the Bilecik region: its combination of a domed portico (son cemaat yeri) with a timber-ceilinged interior constitutes a distinctive typological feature that sets it apart from other examples in the region (Table 3).
3.3 Local craftsmanship and material diversity
One of the fundamental factors behind the typological variations observed in Classical Period mosque architecture in Anatolia is the tradition of local craftsmanship and material diversity (
Goodwin, 1971;
Hillenbrand, 1994). The imperial architects (Hassa Mimarları) and highly skilled stone and timber craftsmen employed in the construction of major mosques in Istanbul were typically sent to the provinces only for specific large-scale projects and in limited numbers (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013).
As a result, mosque construction in Anatolia was predominantly carried out by local guilds of craftsmen and regional building guilds (
Kuban, 2007). Consequently, the technical details, material usage, and construction methods of these buildings were strongly shaped by regional craftsmanship traditions (
Rizvi, 2015). These local traditions influenced not only technical aspects but also the aesthetic identity of the structures. In this respect, Anatolian provincial Classical period mosques do not reflect a homogeneous process of Ottoman classicism but rather a localized and diversified architectural culture (
Rizvi, 2015;
Grabar, 1987).
The combination of timber ceiling and stone façades in the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque can be regarded as one of the most original and striking examples of this creative hybridization.
3.4 Local identity and representation elements
The multi-layered socio-political structure of the Ottoman Empire also had profound effects on architectural production. The Classical Period mosques of Istanbul were primarily commissioned by the sultan, members of the royal family, or high-ranking representatives of the central state, and these buildings served as spatial embodiments of imperial ideology (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Rizvi, 2015). Such mosques emphasized central symmetry, monumentality, elaborate decorative programs, and a supra-regional stylistic language (
Kuban, 2007;
Goodwin, 1971).
In contrast, many Classical period mosques in Anatolia were commissioned by local actors―viziers, regional governors, judges, or wealthy merchant families (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). Consequently, these mosques played a significant role in the construction of local identity and in providing spatial forms for expressions of community representation (
Grabar, 1987). The key architectural elements of local representation can be summarized as follows:
A.
Spatial and structural choices: Flexible plan schemes and the use of local materials―adapted to local needs―are direct indicators of local identity construction (
Rizvi, 2015). The selection of a domed portico and timber-ceilinged prayer hall in the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque is closely connected to both local building traditions and aspirations for regional representation. These choices reflect the creative hybridization processes within provincial classicism.
B.
Decorative and symbolic details: In Anatolian Classical period mosques, decorative elements generally draw from local motifs (
Kuban, 2007). The geometric and vegetal patterns on timber ceilings, and the local stone craftsmanship seen in mihrabs and minbars, are clear expressions of regional identity within the architectural space (
Hillenbrand, 1994). The details of the timber ceiling in the Vezirhan Mosque are directly linked to the regional timber craftsmanship traditions of the Bilecik region.
C.
The mosque’s spatial integration and social function: While major mosques in Istanbul were typically positioned at the heart of urban planning axes (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013), mosques in Anatolia were often integrated with local trade routes, market areas, or caravanserai systems (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). The construction of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque within the context of a roadside külliye and its integration with an adjacent caravanserai is a distinctive example of this local and pragmatic approach.
In conclusion, Classical Period mosques in Anatolia are distinguished from their Istanbul counterparts not only by architectural differences but also through their roles in cultural representation and local identity construction (
Grabar, 1987;
Rizvi, 2015). From this perspective, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque can be regarded as a highly original example demonstrating the capacity of provincial Classical architecture to produce localized forms of representation (Table 4).
4 Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha mosque: historical context and construction framework
The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque was constructed in the mid-17th century as one of the most significant examples of a
provincial roadside külliye (complex) in Ottoman Classical architecture. According to historical documents and vakfiye (endowment) records, the mosque and its associated building group were commissioned by Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmet Pasha in 1660–1661 (
Sağır, 2006;
Çobanoğlu, 2002). Adjacent to the mosque, on its eastern side, lies a caravanserai that is physically and functionally integrated with the mosque. This layout follows the common “mosque–caravanserai side-by-side” configuration frequently seen in Ottoman roadside külliye complexes (
Goodwin, 1971;
Kuban, 2007).
At the time of construction, Vezirhan was a village administratively linked to Lefke (Osmaneli), within the Ertuğrul (Bilecik) Sanjak of the Hüdavendigar Province (
Sezen, 2017). According to vakfiye records, the village’s original name was “Karaoğlanbeli,” and it was granted to Köprülü Mehmet Pasha by Sultan Mehmed IV. Following the construction of the mosque and caravanserai, the settlement became known as “Vezirhan” (
Sağır, 2006;
Çobanoğlu, 2002). In the sources, this building group is referred to as a “Menzil Külliyesi” (way-station complex) (
Çobanoğlu, 2002). Its primary function was to serve the needs of caravans traveling along the Şam (Damascus)–Istanbul route, providing spaces for worship, lodging, and essential services. The security of the caravans was ensured by the derbent (road guard) organization during the Ottoman period (
Keçici, 2008).
According to biographical records, Köprülü Mehmet Pasha originated from Rudnik village in the Berat Sanjak of Albania and was brought to Istanbul at a young age through the devşirme system (
Duman, 2006). He is recognized as the founder of the prominent Köprülü vizier family in Ottoman history. After rising to the position of Grand Vizier, Köprülü Mehmet Pasha actively supported imperial infrastructure and provincial economies, particularly through charitable constructions during the 1660s (
Duman, 2006).
The strategic positioning of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque aligns perfectly with these goals: it is located on the Bursa–Istanbul–Iznik route, within the Karasu Valley, along the primary Şam–Istanbul trade corridor (
Sağır, 2006;
Çobanoğlu, 2002). Vezirhan functioned not as an original settlement core, but rather as a roadside stop and commercial hub. Historical records indicate that the establishment of these buildings played a key role in the settlement’s eventual permanence.
In conclusion, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque stands out as one of the most distinctive and mature examples of the provincial classicism and roadside külliye building typologies of the late Ottoman Classical Period. Moreover, its historical and social context illustrates how provincial architecture was shaped not only architecturally but also through its economic and cultural functions (Fig. 8).
The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque was not conceived as a standalone mosque but as part of an integrated architectural program within the tradition of Ottoman provincial roadside külliye complexes. This context strongly shaped its site layout, spatial organization, and environmental integration. This
menzil külliyesi model was particularly developed along the Şam–Istanbul trade route to serve as strategic complexes located at intersections of military and commercial routes (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007;
Rizvi, 2015). The close physical relationship between the mosque and the caravanserai is meaningful not only in plan but also in functional and social terms. Caravans would typically pray in the mosque during the day and spend the night in the caravanserai (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). This reflects a spatial logic that integrated both religious and economic functions within the complex (
Rizvi, 2015).
The mosque’s northern façade opens directly to the trade route, while the caravanserai courtyard presents a more private and inward-facing character. This spatial contrast reflects the functional programming of the külliye and is a particularly typical and successful example of provincial roadside külliye design (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). In this respect, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Külliye can be considered one of the most sophisticated roadside külliye models of
provincial classicism. The distinctive character of the complex also played an important role in the settlement’s stabilization and in the construction of local identity.
In terms of plan composition, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque represents one of the most original examples of Ottoman provincial Classical architecture. The mosque is based on a rectangular plan oriented along a north–south axis. The main prayer hall is housed within a square-plan mass, covered by a timber ceiling, while the
son cemaat yeri (portico) is designed as a five-bay space topped with five domes. This hybrid plan and roofing system place the mosque in a unique position within the typologies of Anatolian Classical period mosques (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Rizvi, 2015).
In the main hall, a timber ceiling supported by a wooden beam system was chosen. The walls are built of ashlar stone (
Goodwin, 1971). The
son cemaat yeri is covered by five domes resting on five arch spans. This arrangement forms a typological bridge between the domed portico tradition of Istanbul’s Classical period mosques and local provincial building practices (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). The domes are designed with pendentive transitions and slightly flattened profiles. The central axis features a monumental portal that serves as the main transition axis from the
son cemaat yeri to the interior.
The minaret, attached to the mosque’s northern façade, is built on a square base with a cylindrical shaft, proportionally integrated with the mass of the building. The positioning and scale of the minaret reflect the balance between provincial classical aesthetics and pragmatic spatial planning. Through this plan composition, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque embodies a hybrid typology that simultaneously reflects both the high architectural tradition of Istanbul and the influences of local building practices. This makes it a unique and rare example within the broader corpus of Anatolian provincial Classical period mosque architecture (Fig. 8).
Although some sources have attributed the design of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque to Mimar Sinan, no archival or epigraphic evidence supports this claim. Scholarly consensus holds that the mosque was likely designed by regional master builders or officials from the imperial corps. The attribution to Sinan should thus be understood as a traditional association, rather than a documented fact. This methodological clarification reinforces the building’s role as a provincial reinterpretation of classical ideals, shaped by local resources and spatial traditions.
4.1 Domed portico (Son Cemaat Yeri): typological originality
The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque represents a distinctive and noteworthy typological example among provincial Classical period mosques in Anatolia, particularly through its domed
son cemaat yeri (portico). Located on the northern side of the building, this portico features a five-bay and five-dome arrangement. This design demonstrates the adaptation of the domed portico typology―commonly seen in Istanbul’s centralized Classical period mosques―into a semi-monumental form within the Anatolian provincial context (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Rizvi, 2015).
The central axis of the five-bay portico is marked by a monumental entrance portal (
taç kapı), flanked by two flat-arched entrances. The pendentive-supported domes above these arches directly reference the classical Ottoman architectural tradition (
Goodwin, 1971).
This solution offers a particularly original example within the context of caravanserai-associated roadside külliye complexes (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). One of the most striking aspects of this typological originality is the contrast between the domed portico and the timber-ceilinged main prayer hall. This juxtaposition distinguishes the Vezirhan Mosque typologically from other Classical period mosques in Anatolia (
Kuban, 2007).
While the domed portico emphasizes a provincial aspiration toward
classicalization, the timber ceiling of the interior highlights the continued influence of local building traditions and material preferences (
Rizvi, 2015). It can also be suggested that this original typology is related to the mosque’s construction as part of a roadside külliye in conjunction with the adjacent caravanserai.
In this context, the
son cemaat yeri serves both as a transitional space to the prayer hall and as an area for public interaction (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). Moreover, this feature illustrates how the building provides a form of social and spatial representation within the scope of provincial public architecture.
It should also be noted that the current mihrab area is covered by a later wooden cladding, and thus the original form of the mihrab niche is not fully visible. The existing literature provides limited information on the original mihrab configuration, and it is expected that detailed cleaning and investigation during future restoration efforts will clarify its authenticity. This methodological note explains the limited scope of mihrab analysis in this study.
In conclusion, the domed son cemaat yeri of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque is considered a typologically original solution within the corpus of Anatolian provincial Classical period mosque architecture and significantly enhances the building’s cultural representational capacity (Fig. 9).
4.2 Timber ceiling: local material and craftsmanship
One of the most distinctive architectural elements of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque is the timber ceiling covering the main prayer hall. This solution is significant both in terms of material selection and the continuity of local building traditions. While the use of timber ceilings is relatively common among Classical Ottoman mosques in Western and Central Anatolia, in the case of the Vezirhan Mosque, the combination of this ceiling with a domed portico clearly defines the hybrid typology of the building (
Kuban, 2007;
Rizvi, 2015).
The ceiling of the main hall is a flat timber ceiling supported by a square structural system. The ceiling is composed of superimposed timber beams, partially articulated with decorative batten elements. Geometric ornamentation is visible on the ceiling’s timber surfaces, directly linked to the timber craftsmanship traditions of the Bilecik region.
The choice to prioritize timber material in this architectural solution was driven by several factors:
• the local abundance of timber resources,
• the high technical capacity of regional carpenters and timber craftsmen,
• the limited diffusion of stone dome construction techniques,
• and the economic advantages of timber construction.
Compared to similar examples in Western Anatolia, the timber ceiling of the Vezirhan Mosque is relatively austere yet skillfully crafted (
Kuban, 2007). In this regard, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque provides a clear example of typological hybridization and of how local building culture contributed to the modernization of provincial Classical period mosque architecture.
The fact that the timber ceiling has largely preserved its original material and craftsmanship characteristics enhances the mosque’s art-historical value. In conclusion, this timber ceiling application stands as an important and original example of how local materiality and craftsmanship knowledge were creatively integrated with the canonical Classical forms in provincial mosque architecture.
4.3 Façade and building material analysis
The façade composition and building material usage of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque are highly meaningful with respect to both the process of provincial
classicization and the interaction with local building culture. The structure is built with load-bearing masonry walls, prominently featuring local stone materials in its façades. The external walls are primarily composed of rubble stone masonry, with ashlar stone used for corner detailing and window and door surrounds. This solution aligns with the “composite stone usage” tradition commonly observed in many Classical period mosques in Anatolia (
Goodwin, 1971;
Kuban, 2007).
In terms of proportions, the mosque presents a horizontally oriented visual character, directly linked to the use of a timber ceiling in the main hall rather than a high central dome. Morphologically, the building resembles timber-ceilinged Classical period mosques of Western and Central Anatolia (
Kuban, 2007).
The
son cemaat yeri façade is the most monumental face of the building. In this five-bay façade, the arch openings are framed with finely cut ashlar surrounds. The five small domes above the arches create a tiered vertical effect and establish a horizontal-hierarchical façade composition. The northern façade also features the minaret, which is constructed with a square base and a cylindrical shaft, using stone material. The stone craftsmanship of the minaret is consistent with the rest of the building but presents an unadorned, restrained character―an important indicator of typical provincial simplicity (
Rizvi, 2015).
The eastern and western façades are designed quite simply and flatly, with window openings and ashlar stone details providing the main points of visual interest. These façades also exhibit a balanced combination of rubble masonry and ashlar detailing. In terms of material sourcing, the building utilizes local stone from the Bilecik region for its masonry and façade details (
Çobanoğlu, 2002). The timber used for the ceiling was reportedly sourced from local forests, employing high-quality hardwoods.
This material and façade composition demonstrates the successful integration of provincial Classical architecture with local building culture, both functionally and aesthetically (
Kuban, 2007;
Grabar, 1987). In this respect, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque stands as an exemplary case of the original façade morphology characteristic of provincial
classicization (Fig. 10).
5 Discussion and interpretation
The phenomenon of architectural differentiation between center and periphery can be interpreted not only at the typological level but also through the lenses of production relationships, networks of craftsmanship, and cultural representation strategies. This section evaluates the findings of the present research in light of the international architectural history literature and discusses how the processes of provincial classicization in Ottoman architecture can be compared with center-periphery dynamics in broader cultural geographies.
5.1 Models of Center–Periphery differentiation in the international architectural history literature
In architectural historiography, the issue of center–periphery differentiation has been a fundamental research theme not only in relation to Ottoman architecture but across many cultural contexts (
Grabar, 1987). In this regard, comparative analyses from different periods and geographies offer highly instructive insights for understanding the patterns of diversification in Ottoman provincial Classical architecture.
5.1.1 Italian Renaissance: simplification of centralized forms in the periphery
In Italian Renaissance architecture, the process whereby high architectural norms developed in centers such as Florence, Rome, and Venice were implemented in simplified and localized forms in the periphery is well documented in architectural historiography (
Goldthwaite, 1980).
Buildings such as the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Florence represent one of the most accomplished examples of Brunelleschi’s geometric ideal plan and centralized spatial composition. However, in the rural regions of Tuscany, this ideal form was adapted into simplified versions aligned with local building traditions. Churches such as San Biagio in Montepulciano are among the typical examples of this localized interpretation (
Goldthwaite, 1980).
The dynamics of center–periphery differentiation in this model parallel those observed in Ottoman Classical period mosque architecture. The fully centralized plan schemes and monumental scale evident in Istanbul’s mosques―such as Şehzade Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque, and Selimiye Mosque―were reinterpreted in the Anatolian provinces under the influence of various local factors (materials, craftsmanship, building traditions, patronage structures), resulting in simplified and diversified architectural expressions.
Examples of this diversification include the multi-domed simplified designs of the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque in Erzurum and the Sultan Selim Mosque in Konya; the single-domed centralized plan forms of the Behram Pasha Mosque in Diyarbakır and the Rüstem Pasha Mosque in Tekirdağ; and hybrid typologies such as the timber-roofed columnar mosques of the Konya region and the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque.
A structural and representational dynamic remarkably similar to that between the simplification and localization seen in the transition from the Basilica of San Lorenzo to San Biagio is observable in the differentiation between Istanbul’s Ottoman Classical period mosques and the provincial Classical period mosques of Anatolia. In both contexts, high architectural norms developed at the center were transformed through technological and cultural factors into new interpretations in the periphery, producing a rich architectural panorama of local identity construction and typological diversity (Fig. 11).
5.1.2 French Gothic and Renaissance: typological variation and regional identity
In France, Gothic and Renaissance period cathedrals exhibited significant architectural differences between major urban centers and provincial contexts (
Kidson, 1990). Monumental buildings such as Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris) showcase advanced construction technology, high levels of craftsmanship, and ideal Gothic spatial compositions. In contrast, provincial cathedrals were shaped by local material usage and regional craftsmanship, resulting in more heterogeneous plan and façade compositions (
Kidson, 1990).
For example, Albi Cathedral (Sainte-Cécile), while adhering to Gothic design principles, was constructed using local brick and presents a distinctly regional simplicity in its monumental façade design.
This model of center–periphery differentiation offers notable parallels with the development of Ottoman Classical period mosque architecture. In Istanbul’s major centralized mosques―such as Şehzade Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque, and Selimiye Mosque―articulated façade rhythms, monumental entrance compositions, and high-quality stone craftsmanship are prominently featured. In contrast, the façades of Classical period mosques built in Anatolian provincial contexts are often characterized by greater simplicity, functional emphasis, and the use of local stone or timber materials.
Mosques such as Erzurum Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, Konya Sultan Selim Mosque, Diyarbakır Behram Pasha Mosque, and Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque serve as key examples of this process of regional identity construction. In particular, the simplicity of façades, local forms of stone craftsmanship, and typological variations clearly demonstrate how provincial Ottoman Classical period mosques represent localized interpretations of centralized architectural norms.
Just as the difference between Notre-Dame and Albi Cathedral reveals the processes of local identity construction within French Gothic architecture, Ottoman provincial Classical period mosques likewise diverged from the idealized Istanbul model to produce original architectural identities that responded to the spatial and aesthetic needs of provincial communities (Fig. 12).
5.1.3 Safavid Iran: regional diversity in roofing and plan typologies
During the Safavid period in Iran, spatially significant plan typologies, hierarchical spatial organization, and rich tile programs developed in major centers such as Isfahan underwent simplification in roofing systems and an increase in plan variations in provincial contexts (
Rizvi, 2015;
Blair and Bloom, 2009).
The Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque (Isfahan) offers an idealized example of the centralized, dome-focused Safavid plan typology and richly ornamented interior program, serving as a prototypical representation of centralized architectural norms. In contrast, provincial mosques―such as the Friday Mosque of Ardestan―exhibit hybrid roofing systems (timber, brick, small-scale domes) and local plan variations as dominant features (
Rizvi, 2015).
This model exhibits strong parallels with Ottoman provincial Classical period mosque architecture. The fully centralized domed plan schemes of Istanbul (Şehzade Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque, Selimiye Mosque) were adapted in Anatolian provincial contexts into simplified forms and localized versions influenced by regional building traditions.
Diversity in roofing systems is one of the most visible indicators of this differentiation. While buildings such as Erzurum Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, Diyarbakır Behram Pasha Mosque, and Konya Sultan Selim Mosque preserved the domed roofing scheme, other examples―such as the timber-columned and timber-roofed mosques of Konya, or the hybrid configuration of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque, with a timber-ceilinged main prayer hall and domed son cemaat yeri―clearly illustrate the phenomenon of roofing hybridity.
As in Safavid provincial mosques, centralized norms in Ottoman provincial contexts were reinterpreted through variations in roofing and plan typologies shaped by local craftsmanship and material conditions. This process played a fundamental role in the formation of provincial architectural identity (Fig. 13).
5.1.4 Mamluk architecture of Egypt: representation and regional adaptation
During the Mamluk period, the architectural forms, ornamental language, and monumental compositions developed in Cairo were transformed into more pragmatic and functionally oriented forms in provincial regions (such as Anatolia, the Syrian coast, and Palestine), shaped by local craftsmanship and material conditions (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007).
Buildings such as the Mosque-Madrasa of Sultan Hassan in Cairo represent the pinnacle of the Mamluk monumental architectural language. In contrast, provincial examples such as the Jezzar Ahmed Pasha Mosque in Acre (Akka) display localized and adapted versions of this architectural language, characterized by the use of local stone materials and simplified façade compositions (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007).
A similar process is observable within Ottoman Classical period mosque architecture. The monumental façade compositions, ornamental programs, and high-quality stone craftsmanship seen in Istanbul’s mosques―such as Şehzade Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque, and Selimiye Mosque―were reinterpreted in Anatolian provincial contexts through the use of local stone materials, simplified façade rhythms, and functional priorities.
Provincial examples such as Erzurum Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, Diyarbakır Behram Pasha Mosque, Konya Sultan Selim Mosque, and the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque serve as notable representations of the development of localized architectural identity and façade simplification within this process.
As in Mamluk provincial architecture, Ottoman provincial Classical period mosques reflect the adaptive tension between a centralized representational language and local building practices. In both cultural contexts, provincial buildings developed architectural expressions that responded in original ways to the spatial and aesthetic needs of local communities (Fig. 14).
5.2 Reflections in Ottoman architecture and the case of Vezirhan
In light of these international models, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque represents a remarkable intersection of several key dynamics within Ottoman architecture. It exemplifies how centralized architectural norms were localized within provincial contexts, how typological hybridity emerged―most notably through the combination of a timber-ceilinged main prayer hall and a domed son cemaat yeri―and how reinterpretation through local materials and craftsmanship reshaped architectural expressions. Furthermore, the mosque illustrates how processes of local representation and regional identity formation operated within the broader architectural culture of the empire. In this sense, the Vezirhan Mosque serves as a model not only for understanding provincial Classical period mosque architecture but also for comprehending broader center–periphery dynamics in Ottoman architectural culture.
5.3 Comparative analysis of case studies
The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque presents a highly original and hybrid typology when analyzed in comparison to both Ottoman centralized Classical period mosques and the processes of provincial
classicization in Anatolia (
Necipoğlu et al., 2013;
Kuban, 2007).
5.3.1 Comparison with central Ottoman Classical period mosques
The centralized Classical period mosques of Istanbul―such as Şehzade Mosque (1548), Süleymaniye Mosque (1558), and Selimiye Mosque (1575)―are characterized by fully centralized plans, monumental domed roofing, grand façade compositions, and rich decorative programs (
Goodwin, 1971;
Necipoğlu et al., 2013). In these mosques, the dome serves not only as a technical roofing element but also as a spatial representation of Ottoman imperial ideology (
Grabar, 1987).
In contrast, the Vezirhan Mosque features a timber-ceilinged main prayer hall combined with a domed son cemaat yeri, reflecting a distinct typological hybridity not seen in the Istanbul models. Moreover, its façade composition is organized in a more simplified and horizontally oriented manner compared to the monumental proportions of the Classical period mosques in Istanbul.
5.3.2 Comparison with Anatolian provincial classical period mosques
When compared with contemporary Anatolian provincial Classical period mosques, the Vezirhan Mosque presents a uniquely original combination of plan and roofing design. Examples such as Kayseri Kurşunlu Mosque (1574), Erzurum Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque (1562), and Tokat Ali Pasha Mosque (1572) generally exhibit either single-domed centralized plans or simple timber-ceilinged plans. However, none of these examples display the specific hybridity of a domed son cemaat yeri combined with a timber-ceilinged main prayer hall, as found in Vezirhan. This underscores the unique typological status of the mosque.
5.3.3 Comparison with international Center–Periphery differentiation models
Comparative architectural analysis offers an effective method for understanding how central architectural norms are transformed within provincial contexts. The four cultural examples addressed in this section―Italian Renaissance, French Gothic/Renaissance, Safavid Iran, and Mamluk Egypt―each exhibit a center–periphery differentiation similar to that observed in Ottoman architecture. In these architectural traditions, monumental and codified forms were produced in central regions but were subsequently simplified, adapted, and reinterpreted in the provinces in accordance with local construction techniques, material constraints, and modes of socio-cultural representation. These comparisons are based not merely on visual resemblances but on four key architectural parameters: (i) plan scheme and spatial hierarchy, (ii) type of roofing system, (iii) material usage and construction technique, and (iv) integration with environmental or functional context. Each example allows for a comparative similarity with the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmed Pasha Mosque based on at least three of these criteria. This theoretical framework is visualized in the intercultural comparison table presented below.
In this study, the term “high similarity” refers not merely to visual resemblance, but to a convergence across four key architectural parameters: (i) plan scheme and spatial hierarchy, (ii) type of roofing system, (iii) material usage and construction technique, and (iv) the degree of integration with the environmental or functional context. Table 5 visualizes this theoretical affinity by juxtaposing buildings that share at least three out of these four parameters.
Similar dynamics are also observable when comparing the Vezirhan Mosque with international models of center–periphery differentiation, including Italian Renaissance provincial architecture (
Goldthwaite, 1980), French Gothic provincial cathedrals (
Kidson, 1990), Safavid provincial mosques (
Rizvi, 2015), and Mamluk provincial architecture (
Behrens and Abouseif, 2007). In each of these contexts, key patterns emerge: centralized forms are simplified, architectural expression is reinterpreted through local materials and craftsmanship, and typological diversification and hybridity become defining characteristics of provincial architecture.
The hybrid plan and local material usage of the Vezirhan Mosque align closely with these universal dynamics of architectural differentiation between center and periphery, as the structure exhibits (i) a hybrid spatial configuration, (ii) a departure from canonical domed schemes through the use of a timber-roofed interior, and (iii) material choices grounded in regional construction traditions, such as local stone and timber. These characteristics closely parallel those observed in other peripheral reinterpretations of centralized architectural models, such as the Ardestan Jameh Mosque in Safavid Iran or the San Biagio Church in Montepulciano, Italy. This comparative evaluation demonstrates that the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque does not conform strictly to either the centralized Ottoman Classical typology or the typical provincial Classical period mosque typologies. Rather, it has evolved as a unique and hybrid typology shaped by local building culture, material preferences, and regional representational aspirations. This uniqueness positions the mosque as a distinguished example illustrating the typological richness and diversification potential of Ottoman provincial Classical architecture.
This table synthesizes typological transformations observed in four major architectural traditions by comparing canonical religious buildings in urban centers with their peripheral reinterpretations. Across all cases, peripheral examples exhibit consistent divergences from formalized central models through plan simplification, material adaptation, and integration of local construction techniques. These patterns reveal a shared architectural logic that transcends cultural boundaries, whereby dominant spatial and material norms are hybridized to meet regional constraints and vernacular practices. The Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque aligns with this transregional dynamic, especially in its hybrid spatial composition, roofing typology, and reliance on locally available materials.
5.4 Typological and representational discussion
This study of the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque reveals that typological and representational diversification within Ottoman provincial Classical period mosque architecture is a highly layered process. This conclusion applies not only to architectural form but also to dimensions of social and cultural representation.
The architectural configuration of the Vezirhan Mosque demonstrates how the Classical Ottoman mosque typology was diversified and reinterpreted within the Anatolian provincial context. Its timber-ceilinged main prayer hall, the domed
son cemaat yeri, and the integrated spatial relationship with the adjacent caravanserai all distinguish this example from the canonical centralized model. The frequently emphasized model in the literature―comprising a fully centralized plan, grand dome, and monumental façade (
Goodwin, 1971;
Necipoğlu et al., 2013)―is creatively transformed in the Vezirhan example through local building traditions (timber ceilings), the use of regionally available materials (local stone and timber), and functional requirements associated with its role as part of a
yol külliyesi (road complex).
This suggests that the development of Anatolian provincial Classical period mosques did not follow a homogeneous trajectory but instead embraced regional variation and typological hybridity. Moreover, the representational function of the Vezirhan Mosque extends beyond its role as a place of worship. Designed as part of a road complex, the mosque also functioned as a public building, a focal point in local socio-economic life, and an expression of the personal representation of Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmet Pasha.
In this context, the domed son cemaat yeri references Classical monumentality, the timber-ceilinged main prayer hall reflects local building traditions and community identity, and the simplified façade and material choices express the craftsmanship of local artisans. Thus, the Vezirhan Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque can be interpreted both as a localized representation of imperial identity within the provincial context and as an architectural agent in the construction of local social identity.
6 Conclusion and future directions
This study demonstrates that Ottoman provincial Classical period mosque architecture was not a uniform or derivative expression of the imperial model, but a localized and diversified architectural field shaped by regional materials, building traditions, and social meanings. The Köprülü Mehmet Pasha Mosque in Vezirhan exemplifies this plurality through its hybrid typology―featuring a domed front portico and a timber-roofed prayer hall―and its integration into a roadside külliye. As such, the study contributes to both Ottoman architectural historiography and broader discussions of center–periphery dynamics in architecture.
6.1 Theoretical insights and new research trajectories
Rather than viewing provincial architecture as a subordinate copy of the Istanbul-centered Classical canon, this study proposes a more polycentric and network-based analytical framework. The Vezirhan Mosque illustrates how typological hybridity and spatial adaptation were guided by local resources, craftsmanship, and socio-cultural context. The plan and façade are not only architectural choices but also manifestations of regional identity. Therefore, Ottoman provincial Classical architecture should be studied through interdisciplinary lenses, engaging with cultural history, social representation, and material economies.
6.2 Based on the insights emerging from this study, several potential research directions are proposed
A. Comprehensive typological database of Ottoman provincial külliyes should be developed to address current gaps in the literature.
B. Comparative research on yol külliyes and menzil architecture―including case studies like Vezirhan―can deepen our understanding of mobility-based architectural strategies.
C. Studies on local craft guilds and construction techniques, such as the timber ceiling systems of Bilecik and Konya, are essential for reassessing regional architectural knowledge.
D. The ideological and representational dimensions of center–periphery relations should be further explored to understand how architecture shaped political and social identities.
In this regard, the Vezirhan Mosque should not be treated merely as a provincial anomaly but as a valuable model for understanding the adaptive, inventive, and representational capacity of Ottoman architecture outside the imperial core. This study thus advocates for more dynamic, multi-scalar analytical frameworks in the study of architectural differentiation across the empire.
2095-2635/2025 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
PDF
(16713KB)
