1-ICAUD Architecture and Tile Usage in City Planning of Kütahya from Tanzimat to Republic V. Belgin DemirsarArlı, Şennur Kaya (Ass. Prof. Dr. V. Belgin Demirsar Arlı, Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Art History Department, Ordu Cad,.196, 34134 Istanbul /Turkey, [email protected]) (Lec. Dr. Şennur Kaya, Istanbul University, Fine Arts Department, Vezneciler Cad., 11, 34134 Istanbul /Turkey, [email protected]) 1 ABSTRACT Kütahya, which is located in the Aegean Region of Turkey, was founded in the 3th thousand BC. It was ruled by Phrygia, Bithynia, Pergamon, Rome and Byzantium until it was fully conquered by the Seljuks in the first half of the 13th century. Before joining the Ottoman Empire in 1429, Kütahya became the ruling center of the Germiyanids, who declared independence at the beginning of the 14th century. The traces of the city’s historical past that have reached today, belongs to the Germiyanids and the Ottomans. The settlement inside the castle was the point of origin for the city’s expansion during the Preottoman and the Ottoman periods. The first settlements of residence and trade outside the castle began on the eastern side of the castle and expanded towards the north, spread towards the plain beneath the Hıdırlık Hill. The physical structure of the city until the 19th century represents the classical Ottoman architecture and city planning forms. However, the Ebniye Nizamnameleri, which became effective along with the changes in the institutional, social, cultural and economic structures, formalized by the declaration of the Tanzimat reforms in 1839, generated a significant change in the structures of Anatolian cities. The architecture of the governor’s office, the prison, the barracks and Idadi (high school), generated a new public space. The change is perceived throughout the city resulting from the renovations that carry out influences from the Western architectural styles. In this paper, the religious and public buildings will be analyzed together in the light of archive documents, considering the development of the city and the restructuring. Tile-making which is the main reason of Kütahya’s renown will be analyzed in terms of utilization characteristics in the buildings and an evaluation will be made considering the city and the period. 2 URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF KÜTAHYA CITY The expansion area of Kütahya, which is located in the Central Western Anatolia of the Aegean Region is between the Yellice Mountain and the Hıdırlık Hill, on the east-west axis in the skirts of the Yellice Mountain1. It is estimated that the foundation of Kütahya, which is mentioned as Kotiaeion, Kotiaion, Cotyaeum and Cotyaium in historical documents, date back to BC 30002. In the chronology of Anatolian civilizations, the city was under the rule of Phrygia, Bithynia, Pergamon, Rome and Byzantium, and came under the Seljuk rule in the first half of the 13th century. Kütahya, which became the ruling center of the Germiyanids that declared independence at the beginning of the 14th century, joined the Ottoman Empire in 1429. Under the Ottoman rule, it was first the ruling centre of the district, and shortly after it became the centre of the Anatolia State. In 1841, it became a district of Hüdavendigar Province. In 1915, it was an independent district and after the proclamation of Republic, it became a province3. This brief historical background provides the turning points of Kütahya in terms of urban transformation and development. In this respect; the settlement area which was likely to have been inside the Byzantian castle previously, constituted the centre of the expansion area of the city before and during the Ottoman period, and it was found that the first settlements of trade and residence outside the castle starting from the eastern skirts 1 Mehmet Bayartan, XIX. Yüzyılda Kütahya’nın Tarihi Coğrafyası, İstanbul University, Social Sciences Institute, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul 2003, p. 225. 2 Önder Bilgi, “İslam Öncesi Kütahya Yöresi Seramik Sanatı” Toprak, Ateş, Sır Tarihsel Gelişimi, Atölyeleri ve Ustalarıyla Kütahya Çini ve Seramikleri, İstanbul 2005, p. 15. 3 For detailed information on the history of Kütahya, see: İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Kütahya Şehri, İstanbul 1932. 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design EPOKA University 219 Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Department of Architecture of the castle and continuing to the north (Balıklı, Paşam Sultan, Pirler and Servi Neighborhoods), expanded in time to the plain below the Hıdırlık Hill.4 The fact that Kütahya was selected as an administrative centre under the Turkish rule granted privilege to its urban development. Kütahya, which is located in a strategic road intersection point on the North-South and East-West axis of Anatolia, maintained its administrative centre status for years because of the advantages that its location provided5. Fig.1: General View of Kütahya It is possible to trace the development of the city during the Ottoman period based on the information about neighborhoods and population documents. In the first quarter of the 16th century, about 4.313 people lived in 28 neighborhoods in Kütahya, and in the last quarter the number of neighborhood increased to 37 and the population rose to 8.228 people. In the same century, it is possible to relate the reason of the population increase to Celali revolt that accelerated the migration to the cities and to the fact that Kütahya became an administrative centre6. The documents and data of the following years indicate that the population continued to increase in the city. The documents state that in the 17th century, there were 35 neighborhoods and 11.000 residents in Kütahya7. At the beginning of the Tanzimat period, which constitutes the period covered by the research, it is seen that there were 31 neighborhoods in the city and the population was 19.810 based on Temettuat notebooks of 1844, which is an important source about the demographical and socio-economic structure of the city. According to Hüdavendigar Province Annual dated 1308 (1890/91) the population of Kütahya was 24. 7218. There were some negative developments for Kütahya in the 19th century. One of them is the foundation of Hüdavendigar Province, whose administrative centre was Bursa, in 1841, and Kütahya lost its status as an administrative centre. The fact that the railway network, which became widespread towards the end of the 19th century, remained outside Kütahya, affected the city negatively in terms of commerce9. There are no concrete information and documents about the history of tile-making in the Ottoman period, which is one of the most important branches of production among the economic activities in Kütahya, yet. As no scientific excavations have been conducted in Kütahya yet, even though it is not possible to speak with certitude, the Otoman-period tile-making can be traced back to the 15th century. It is certain that the 19th 4 Ara Altun, “Kütahya’nın Türk Devri Mimarisi, Bir Deneme”, Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılına Armağan Kütahya, Istanbul 1981-1982, pp. 185- 187. 5 Bayartan, pp. 220-221. 6 Bayartan, p. 143. 7 M. Çetin Varlık, “XVI. Yüzyılda Kütahya Şehri ve Eserleri”, Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, Issue 3, Istanbul 1988, p. 206. 8 For a detailed analysis on Kütahya neighborhoods and its population, see: M. Bayartan, XIX. Yüzyılda Kütahya’nın Tarihi Coğrafyası, Istanbul University, Social Sciences Institute, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul 2003. 9 Bayartan, p. 309. EPOKA University 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design 220 Department of Architecture Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al century, which constitutes our subject, is not a brilliant period in terms of tile-making. But as of the end of the 19th century, tile- making revived in Kütahya, which played a significant role in the revival of the city, thanks to the efforts Ahmet Fuat Paşa, who was a Governor in Kütahya between 1893–1908, put forth and this revival continued until the World War II10. 3 LATE PERIOD OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE IN KÜTAHYA AND TILE DECORATION 3.1 Traditional Buildings This study aims to specify how Kütahya tiles, which is the real source of renown for Kütahya, were evaluated among the late Ottoman urban architectural examples as well as pinpointing the physical change in Kütahya, by focusing on the new building types introduced by the Ottoman modernization in the process from the Tanzimat to the Republic. The traditional buildings in the city are also revised for this purpose. However, except for the traditional building types in this period that are studied, it should be underlined that there are many buildings whose construction date back to Germiyanids and the early Ottoman period, which had their final form in restorations and renovations in the period covered by this research. Studying these buildings in detail in terms of architecture and decoration is beyond the purpose and scope of this research. Therefore, only the buildings that stand out in terms of design and tile utilization were analyzed, and we aimed to trace the reflections of the late Ottoman architecture on the city as a whole. The most monumental example among the traditional buildings that bear the traces of the late Ottoman architecture in the city is Kütahya Ulu Mosque. The Mosque was built in the 14th century and underwent serious restoration work three times, in the 16th century and finally in the 19th century in 1891/92. The upper parts of the walls of the mosque, which owe its current appearance to that final restoration, were restored, the roof was restored in six semi-domes that support two main domes on the mihrap axis11. In the main section of the building generally the decoration style of Baroc character is dominant. Ulu mosques are among the symbolizing buildings of the cities where they are constructed, and in the case of Kütahya, even though mosques are expected to have been decorated with tiles, almost no tile was utilized in this mosque. Among the kalemişi (wall painting) decorations in which dark colours of the late period are dominant, the tile produced in Kütahya that is dated to the 18th century with the depiction of Kaabe consisting of four tiles used symbolically next to the mihrap is observed. Fig.2: Kütahya Ulu Mosque. Fig. 3: Kütahya Ulu Mosque, the Kaaba depiction tile. 10 V. Belgin Demirsar Arlı, “Kütahya Çiniciliği”, Anadolu’da Türk Devri Çini ve Seramik Sanatı (Ed. Gönül ÖNEY), Istanbul 2007, pp. 329-345. 11 Altun, pp. 199-215, 406-409. 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design EPOKA University 221 Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Department of Architecture Another important building that was restored in the 19th century in Kütahya is Mevlevihane of Kütahya 12 , which is also known as Ergün Çelebi Lodge or Dönenler Mosque. The Lodge was constructed in the 14th century, and the final form was given in the restoration and renovation work in the 19th century. The high drum with an octagonal plan that rises in the middle of the two storey building with a square plan, is covered with a wooden dome inside and a pyramidal roof outside. In its rather plain façade design, windows with circular arches are the elements that reflect the later period style. Besides, a Baroc appearance is added here by emphasizing the entrance axis that is extended to the front with two columns with circular arch opening by a roof with wavy fringes. Despite the plainness of the outside of the building, intense decorations of Baroc character are observed in the dome and in the dome drum inside. The name of the calligrapher who signed his name as “Halil Mahir bin Mehmed Kütahyevi” in the kalemişi decoration in Ulu Mosque and Lala Hüseyin Paşa Mosque, which was constructed in the 16th century and restored in the 19th century, can be read in the tile inscription above the entrance of this building13. In this building as well as in Ulu Mosque, tile is utilized only as a symbol. Although there was no signature indicating any name of the master that produced the kalemişi decoration inside, because of its similarity with the kalemişi in Ulu Mosque, it would not be wrong to attribute them to the same master. Fig. 4: Mevlevihane of Kütahya. Fig. 5: Mevlevihane of Kütahya, tile inscriptions. Based on the inscriptions in the entrance portico and minaret of Balıklı Mosque in the Balıklı neighborhood, the construction that started in the first half of the 13th century continued until 1898/99. The building with a square plan and a single dome has an entrance portico with three sections14. The decorations of the building, which was restored on the initiative of Fuat Paşa and First Secretary Âli Efendi, date back to this period. The only tile is located in the triangular frontal of the mihrap. Under the mihrap prayer written inside a cartridge enriched with herbal pattern and the composition with the inscription “bismillahirrahmanirrahim” in circular frame above it, are the date 1316 (1898/99) and the signature of Hafız Mehmet Emin Efendi (1872-1922), who was one of the most important tile masters in Kütahya. The inscription which reads “Amel-i Mehmet Emin min telamiz-i Mehmet Hilmi Kütahya yadigârı”, was used as a phrase in general in the decoration of buildings with a large schedule constructed in that period as well as in the tiles used in the restorations of the early buildings that cover the said periods by the Master Mehmet Emin, who was one of the most influential figures in the decoration program of especially the I. National Turkish Architectural Movement between the end of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Kütahya Governor’s Office, which is the most magnificent building decorated with tiles in this late period construction program in Kütahya and which will be studied shortly, is similarly one of the most successful examples of the works of this Master15. 12 For detailed information see: Altun, pp. 347-354; Ş. Bârihüdâ Tanrıkorur, Tekke Mimarisi ve Anadolu Mevlevihanelerinin Mimari Fonksiyon Analizi, Selçuk University, Social Sciences Institute, Unpublished Phd Thesis, Konya 2000. 13 Altun, pp. 203,258; Faruk Şahin, “Kütahya’da Çinili Eserler” Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılına Armağan Kütahya, Istanbul 1981-1982, p. 128. 14 Altun, p. 216. 15 For a detailed work on Master Mehmet Emin of Kütahya see: Hakan Arlı; “ Kütahyalı Mehmed Emin Usta ve Eserlerinin Üslubu”, İstanbul University, Social Sciences Institute, Unpublished MA Thesis, İstanbul 1986. EPOKA University 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design 222 Department of Architecture Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Fig.6: Balıklı Mosque. Fig.7: Balıklı Mosque, tile inscription. Again in the Balıklı Neighborhood, the construction of Saadettin Mosque, which is opposite the northern exit of the Large Covered Bazaar, covers the period between the first half of the 13th century and 1870. The mosque which is a successful application16 of later period mosques with stores on irregular planning, has reached today after various restorations and annexes and tile decoration date to 1899/1900. Inside the mihrap niche with circular arch of the building, there is an inscription panel in the form of a car consisting of tiles placed in a curve. Above the panel reads in dark blue sülüs calligraphy in the middle in capital letters “küllema dehale aleyha zekeriyya el-mihrap”, on its right is “bismillahirrahmanirrahim”, and on its left reads “sadaka allah el-azim” and the year 1317 (1899/1900). Above this cartridge frame, the signature of Hafız Mehmet Emin Efendi is visible only when you take a closer look. Here the inscription reads “cami-i saadeddin amel-i Mehmet Emin min telamiz-i Mehmet Hilmi Kütahya”17. Fig. 8: Saadettin Mosque. Fig. 9: Saadettin Mosque, tile inscription. 16 Altun, pp. 270-274. 17 Arlı, pp. 25-26. 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design EPOKA University 223 Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Department of Architecture In Paşamsultan neighborhood, Timurtaş Paşa (Takvacılar) Mosque, which is one of the oldest mosques in Kütahya and which is next to the Small Covered Bazaar, was restored in the first half of the 19th century18. The Mosque is important for this research in terms of its mihrap tiles. Tiles are utilized in the preaching pedestal and the minbar outside the mihrap. The tiles in the mihrap niche are different from the tiles around the mihrap, in the preaching pedestal and the minbar. The tiles in the mihrap niche were produced by Mehmet Emin Efendi (1872-1922) and added in 1902. Other tiles were produced by Azim Tile Factory, which was another important factory in Kütahya that operated in the Republic era and dates to 1941. The basis of the composition of the tiles in the mihrap niche consists of curtains wrapped around the columns on both sides, the tassels hanging on these curtains, oil lamps and candlesticks. Under the candlestick on the left is the signature of the master in a cartridge in two lines. Here it reads; “an mamulât-ı Mehmet Emin min telamiz-i Mehmet Hilmi Kütahya yadigâr fi 20 Eylül sene 1318 ve fi 1 Receb sene 1320’. This detailed inscription about the master is a clear indication of the fact that in the late period building of the Ottoman era, Hegira calendar was used together with the Rumi calendar.19 Fig. 10: Takvacılar Mosque. Fig. 11: Takvacılar Mosque, the tile of mihrap niche. In Paşamsultan Neighborhood, the construction of Kaditler Mosque, which is located in Lala Hüseyin Paşa Street, started in 1834/35, and was completed in 1847/48. The kagir (brick stone) building which has a restoration plate on the western side that indicates the date 1335 (1916/17), is a mosque with a store with a trapezoid plan and with a roof20. The keystones of the mosque floor whose façade facing the street is hewn stone, its window order in an apparent shallow arch and semi-circular projection make the building perceived as pertaining to late period Ottoman architecture. It is observed that the use of tiles in the building is limited as in other examples. The inscription in the form of a cartridge that contains the mihrap prayer signed by Mehmet Emin with the date 1328 (1910/11), is located above the mihrap on the upper floor. Besides it is considered that the circular panels which are designed as convex tile plates – on which are the names “Allah”, “Muhammed”, “Ebubekir-Ömer-Osman-Ali” and “Hasan-Hüseyin” – and the octagonal central bosses of ceiling and tile hanging balls are the works produced by the same master21. Fig. 12: Kaditler Mosque, the tiles up to mihrap. Fig.13: Kaditler Mosque, the tiles of ceiling. 18 Altun, pp. 230-238. 19 Arlı, pp. 32-33. 20 Altun, pp. 279-281. 21 Arlı, pp. 38-39. EPOKA University 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design 224 Department of Architecture Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Fig: 14: Kaditler Mosque. Fig. 15: Yeşil Mosque. Yeşil Mosque, which was built at the beginning of the 20th century in Saray Neighborhood, is distinct from other mosques in terms of design. The architect of the mosque, which was constructed by Fuat Paşa in 1321 (1905/06)22, is mentioned as Fuat Paşa23. The Mosque consists of the main section in a square plan and covered with a dome standing on the high octagonal drum and a section with a dome supported by two columns at the entrance. Its façades were designed with windows in sharp arches and pillars, and hewn stone coating was applied in the corners and movement was introduced. Its polygon body minaret with a balcony is the only example constructed in this style in Kütahya24. Inside is the decoration style arranged in Islamic motifs around the mihrap niche with the Magreb25 arches which was made outstanding in golden gilding. Fig. 16: Yeşil Mosque, The Dome Decorations. Fig. 17: Yeşil Mosque, Inside Decorations. In addition to these monumental examples of traditional building typology, the fountains and sakahanes in Kütahya that were constructed or restored in the late Ottoman period make up a group. Among the surviving examples are Hürriyet Fountain, which was in front of the İdadi when it was constructed, and then moved to the area of Saray Hamam, and which is dated to 1325 (1908)26 based on its inscription, is a monument that 22 Uzunçarşılı, p. 136. 23 Altun, p. 277. 24 Altun, p. 275. 25 Altun, p. 276. 26 Altun, p. 444. 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design EPOKA University 225 Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Department of Architecture symbolizes the Constitutional Monarchy II period in the city. The body consists of a faucet niche that has a circular arch placed inbetween two plaster groups. Above, in the centre the Ottoman coat of arms ends in a sliced frontal consisting of three parts decorated with five arms with stars in both sides. Fig. 18: The Hürriyet Fountain. 3.2 New Building Types 3.2.1 Governor’s Office It is considered that the Palace/Governor’s Office, which was used in the earlier period of the Germiyanids and the Ottoman Empire, was around the Saray Neighborhood27. After the fires and renovations, its function and architecture suffered damages28 and the old wooden29 Governor’s Office that was replaced by the new building which was built by Fuat Paşa in 1907/0830 is in this neighborhood. The building that was used as Kütahya Governor’s Office until 1970’s, is the Kütahya Court of Justice today31. Fig. 19: Governor’s Office (http://www.kutahya.gov.tr). Fig. 20: The Plan of Governor’s Office (Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection Consil of Kütahya). It is stated that the plan of the hall was drawn by Fuat Paşa32. The building remains beyond a wide courtyard surrounded by walls that are higher than the street level. It has a rectangular plan that develops in width massively, and it is two storey above the basement level. Both floors are planned with rooms placed around the corridor extending in the east-west direction that opens to the passage section in the centre. The middle 27 For a detailed work on the old palace and Governor’s Office s in the city see: Uzunçarşılı, pp. 140-142; Altun, pp. 403-405, 435-436. 28 Altun, p. 404. 29 Uzunçarşılı, p. 141. 30 Uzunçarşılı, p. 142. 31 M. Mustafa Kalyon, Kütahya’da Selçuklu-Germiyan ve Osmanlı Eserleri, Kütahya, undated, p. 401. 32 Kalyon, p. 397. EPOKA University 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design 226 Department of Architecture Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al section of the upper floor is a two-grade octagonal form by observing the traditional covering style in the buildings in Kütahya33, and emphasized with the bright lantern that is seen from outside. The building has hipped roof in general. Kütahya Governor’s Office also draws attention in terms of its window frames in which two colour stones are used and the façade design enriched with tile covering. Particularly the main emphasis is laid on the entrance façade which is on the street. This façade, besides the tile decoration which will be studied separately, is more vivid as compared to other façades based on its order that overflows in the corners and in the centre. The column arrangement with three openings in front of the landing with steps in the entrance axis at the centre of the façade supports the above projection which was designed as the governor’s room. The three-window group in this section was repeated in the rear side which is flat and in the central parts of the façades. Fig. 21: Governor’s Office. It can be stated without any hesitation that this is the most outstanding building in terms of tile decoration in Kütahya, especially in terms of the period we study. In fact, it is certain that the building has a privileged place even in general Ottoman architecture. As everybody knows, in Ottoman architecture such frequent tile utilization is not common in the façades. Among the sides of the building, tile is only used in the façade. The entire surface of the upper floor, the inner parts of the entrance section with steps, all window frames including the chimney of the Governor’s Office, all façade is covered with tiles. Tile is used only in the mescit section inside the building. One of the most important data in terms of dating the building is the tile inscriptions that are placed on both sides on the upper line of the window in the middle in the three-window arrangement in governor’s room. In two inscriptions that are arranged in cartridges, the one on the right reads "sene 1323", and the one on the left reads "sene 1325” and Hegira and Rumi correspondents are 1907/08.34 Tiles with the same motif were used in the entrance side of the building, including the chimney. Another aspect that makes these tiles important with herbal patterns and supplement design is in the form of assembly. It is seen that each tile is attached with a golden gilded nail at the bottom and at the top, which can be considered as an obligation for using tiles in such a wide surface in the outer surfaces35. Despite the movement in the outer surfaces, the walls of the entrance section in the form of an iwan with three openings, draw attention through a more relaxing appearance in which single colour tiles are used dominantly. 33 Altun, p. 403. 34 Arlı, p. 115. 35 For a detailed research in this subject see: V.Belgin Demirsar Arlı, “Kudüs’te Harem – i Şerif’teki Bir Sondajda Bulunan Osmanlı Dönemi Çinileri ve Çivili Çini Kullanımı Hakkında Bazı Görüşler”, Çanak Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts, Byzas 7, Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul, İstanbul 2007, pp. 501 – 514. 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design EPOKA University 227 Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al Department of Architecture Contrary to the outer surfaces, it is observed that the use of tiles is very limited in the interior in which tile decoration is more frequently used in the Ottoman architecture. Tiles are used in the mescit which is on the right hand side of the entrance inside. The tile inscription on the left of the mescit door states the year 1323 (1907/08). The mescit, which was not emphasized in the outer surface so as not to change the symmetrical order, was emphasized as a special unit with a meticulous tile decoration. It is observed that all the walls and mihrap are covered with tiles and that there were ulama- infinity pattern - tiles in the walls whose earlier examples were seen in Bursa Şehzade Mustafa Tomb (1572) and which were used repeatedly as they were admired in the Ottoman art of tile, and in the mihrap, the mihrap of Karaman İbrahim Bey Charity Establishment (1432) was followed, and applied by preserving the original36. Though there is no signature on the tiles of this building which is the symbol of Kütahya, we can attribute it, without any hesitation, to Master Mehmet Emin, whose signed tiles we observed previously in the buildings enriched with tiles during the late period restoration in Kütahya, because of both his style and the fact that he uses in this building the tiles he used in his signed works outside Kütahya37. Fig.22: Governor’s Office, Fig. 23: Governor’s Office, Fig. 24: Governor’s Office, tiles of chimney. tile decorations of entrance. tile decorations of Mescit. 3.2.2 Prison The prison, which is close to the Yeşil Mosque, did not reach to the present day. The information we had about the construction of this prison, which is one of the new types of building that arose as a result of the judicial arrangements in the Tanzimat period, belongs to the end of the 19th century. In 1890, the plan and reports on estimated cost were drawn up for the prison to be built in Kütahya38. In 1914, it was planned that a guard’s tower39 and hospital40 would be added to the prison. The building was destroyed in a fire41. The plan of Kütahya prison, which was constructed at the end of the 19th century and which was constructed originally as a prison42, indicates the location of the hospital to be added in the actual plan and is in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archive43. According to this plan, the prison which is surrounded by a wall has a plan with a two-storey building in open central courtyard in three directions and one-storey in the entrance direction. On the ground floor plan, the locations are in symmetrical order facing one another. The purpose of service of each location is specified in the plan. Here in addition to the wards and the wet areas, there are the Mosque, Military Police Room, Director’s Office and Guardians’ Office indicating the social, administrative and security affairs in the prison based on this floor. The upper floor which consists of narrower massive 36 Arlı, p. 118. 37 Hakan Arlı, “ Kütahyalı Mehmed Emin Usta ve Eserlerinin Üslubu”, İstanbul University, Social Sciences Institute, Unpublished MA Thesis, İstanbul 1986. 38 DH. MKT. 1737 / 20. 39 DH. MB. HPS. 112 / 8. 40 DH. MB. HPS. 23 / 10. 41 Altun, p. 439. 42 Altun, p. 439. 43 DH. MB. HPS. 3 / 113. EPOKA University 1st International Conference on Architecture & Urban Design 228 Department of Architecture Proceedings 19-21 April 2012 – www.icaud.epoka.edu.al