http://www.press.ierek.com

ISSN (Print: 2537-0154, online: 2537-0162)

International Journal on:

The Academic Research Community Publication

DOI: 10.21625/archive.v2i4.368

The Architecture of Mevlevi Buildings, One of the Dervish Houses
in the Ottoman Geography

Hasan Şehmuz Haştemoğlu1, Engin Kepenek2
1Suleyman Demirel University, Architecture Faculty, Architecture Department, Turkey

2Suleyman Demirel University, Architecture Faculty, City and Regional Planning Department, Turkey

Abstract
The Mevlevism order was established in the Seljuk period in Anatolia in the thirteenth century. After the death of
Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi, his son Sultan Veled systemized his father’s thoughts and created his own rules and
brought the rituals to a ceremony in the form of sema ceremonies. Sultan Veled gave the name “Mevlevism” to
his sect and was called “Mevlevihan” to his Dervish Houses. Nearly 140 Mevlevihane building was established
in a wide geography which its east is in Tabriz (Iran), west is in Pecu (Hungary), north is in Gözleve (Ukraine),
South is in Cairo (Egypt) and Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Nearly 80 of these Dervish Houses remained in the Republic
of Turkey. After the declaration of Turkish Republic, these Dervish Houses were closed in 1925 by the law of
“closure Tekkes and Zaviyes”, no. 677.

There are two kinds of Mevlevihan, which are “Asitane” and “Zaviye”. Mevlevihan called Asitane are the main
Dergahs which are full-fledged and has removing “ordeal” possibilities. The number of Asitane constructions is
around 15 in all Mevlevihan buildings. Another Mevlevihan building is Zaviye. Zaviye were ruled by Mevlevi,
who has the title of “şeyh” and “dede”. Many of the Mevlevihan become a historical monument because of their
architectural style and construction date. However, most of these structures have been ruined over the years. Apart
from a small number of Mevlevihan, which was established as ”Külliye”, ”Semahane” parts of these Mevlevihan
were used as mosques and remained up to date. When the architectural programs of the Mevlevihans are examined,
it is seen that the Mevlevihans, which were settled down in 13th century have an architectural program after the 16th
century and they take Konya Mevlana Dergah as an example. However, it is not possible to mention about same
sized and specified spaces in all the Mevlevihans. There are similar sections only in the large- scale Mevlevihans
which are “Asitane” status. In this study, an evaluation and classification study was carried out on the architectural
formation of the Mevlevihans one of the Dervish constructions in Islamic architecture which attracted attention
with its wide geography.

© 2019 The Authors. Published by IEREK press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Keywords

Mevlevism; Dervish Houses; Mevlevihane Architecture

1. Introduction

The Mevlevihan of Konya, the other name “Âsitâne-i Aliyye” is the first place that comes to mind when Mevlevihan
is called. This is the place where Hazrat-i Mevlana and other Dergah leaders who came after him were buried after

pg. 278

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

their death. And the other function of this place is administrative center. The person who wants to be a Mevlevi, has
to spend 1001 painful days in Asithane to be a Dervish. Then with the decision of dede’s, he becomes a Dervish
and can be assigned to the other Zaviyes. The influence of the Mevlevihans which have integrated music and
science together for centuries, has also been great on Turkish Culture. Many people gathered in the Mevlevihans
have studied in many branches of fine arts and have made scientific field reputation. Mevlevism, which started in
Anatolia during the Seljuk period, spread all over the empire geography in the Ottoman period.

Figure 1. MevleviBuildings in Ottoman Geography

2. Mevlevihans in Balkans and Crimea

In the course of the demolition of the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan states made special efforts to evacuate the
settlements of Turkish and other Muslim communities in their countries after autonomy and full independence. In
this context, as a continuation of the politics of ”purification from the Ottoman Empire”, the liberation movement of
the Ottoman architectural works was seen. This process was carried out by direct destruction of architectural works,
abandonment without decisive action, or conversion of the structure into another structure (Sancaktar, 2012). As
a result of this, a major architectural work has been lost. Among these works, there are many Mevlevihans and
tekkes which spread in the Balkans. With the help of documents in the Konya Mevlana Dervish House Central
Archives and the lists prepared by Prof. Dr. Klaus Kreiser and Alexandre Popovic, the Mevlevihans that are
found in the Balkan geography and Crimea are; in the former Yugoslavia; Belgrade, Sarajevo, Silk, Kriva Palanka,
Mostar, Nis, Pristina and Skopje, in Greece; Larissa, Chania, Lesbos, Thessaloniki, Serez, Tatar and Vadina, in
Albania; Elbasan and Tirana, in Bulgaria; Plovdiv and Vidin, in Hungary; Pecs and Peştu, In Ukraine (Crimea);
Gözleve Mevlevihans (Önder, 1994).

It is possible to obtain limited information about the Belgrade Mevlevihan which is in the former Yugoslavia but
there is no architectural information on the structure (Göre, 2002). The Zaviye of Isa Bey (Uz, 1996), founded
in 1462 in Sarajevo, was destroyed during the Ottoman-Austrian war between 1683-1699, then rebuilt in 1781
and added a mosque. The Mevlevihan was destroyed in 1957 and rebuilt in 2013 (TİKA, 2003). The Skopje
Mevlevihan was converted to Mevlevihan while it was using as a Pasha mound in city center in 1650. There are
still some pictures left behind the structure that was destroyed over time (Karpuz, 2009). It is understood that
the Ipek Mevlevihan in the city of Ipek in Kosovo was active in 1911 from the existing records (Karpuz, 2010).
However, the Mevlevihan was destroyed by the Montenegrins who occupied the city in 1912. On the other side,
the other Mevlevihans in the former Yugoslavia; Kriva Palanko, Mostar, Nis, Pristina Mevlevihans have also failed

pg. 279

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

to survive. Besides, architectural information about these Mevlevihans could not be achieved in the reseaerches
carried out (Küçük, 2000).

Greece region has the highest number of Mevlevihans in the Balkans after the former Yugoslavia. The Yenişehir-i
Fenar Mevlevihan in Larissa is one of the fifteen Asitane in the Ottoman Empire and the only Asitane in the Balkans
(Gölpınarlı, 1983). With the different available information, it is thought that the date of construction is the middle
of the 17th century. It is understood from the documents dated 1891 that the Dervishes returned to Bursa after
the city was taken by Greek and the leader at the head of Mevlevihan was told that “The Dervish House will be
demolished and they ought to leave the city” (Demirci ve Ösen, 2012). In addition, Hanya Mevlevihan, still used as
an orphanage in Crete Island (Kara, 1997) and Athens Mevlevihan Mustafa Aga Mosque which is in the city center
(Karpuz, 2010) are few Mevlevihans which have survived in Greece. Thessaloniki and Serez Mevlevihans were
abandoned and destroyed. Just a little information about Serez Mevlevihan and some photographs of Thessaloniki
Mevlevihan have reached the present day (Bakırcı and Turkan, 2013). No available information was reached
about Mytilene, Mastic and Tatar Mevlevihans. The name of the Mevlevihan in Elbasan (a city in Albania) is
in the section of “Mevlevihans in Southern Europe” in A.Popovic’s work ”Les Derviches Balkaniques Hier et
Aujourd’hui” and the Mevlevihan is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Islam of the Turkish Religious Foundation,
a document dated 1742 but detailed information about the building is not available. No information was obtained
about Tirana Mevlevihan. The Filibe Mevlevihan which is one of the two Mevlevihans in Bulgaria, only Selamlık
and Semahane parts are the standing parts of the Mevlevihan today. The Mevlevihan, used as a mosque and school
in the past, has been used as a restaurant since 1974 (Karpuz, 2010). The Mevlevihan, located in the Pec city of
Hungary, was built in the 16th century and only Semahane part of the mosque was reached today (Molnar, 1993).
In the examinations that have been made, no information was available on Pest Mevlevihan the other Mevlevihan
in Hungary. It is known that the Mevlevihan, which is estimated to have been built in the 16th century in the city of
Gözde, was bombed by Russian planes during the 1944 exile. Just a ruined mosque and a Semahane left to present
day from Mevlevihan. Semahane was restored in 1996 and used for educational purposes. The mosque is ruined
(Kuş, 2011).

3. Mevlevihans in Middle East and North Africa

In the Ottoman Empire, one of the remarkable features of the Mevlevihans in the Arab states is to have a cultural
bridge function. So that Ottoman religious scholars generally know Persian but there are very few Araps who speak
Persian. The Arabic Mevlevi and Muhips could only learn Iranian Sufi Literature through the Turkish language
(Glassen, 1996). However, after the Ottomans, the interest in Mevlevism was weakened and as a result of this most
of the Mevlevihans in the Middle East and North Africa were destroyed or became unusable. By the documents in
the Dergah of Konya Mevlana Dervish House Central Archive and the lists prepared by Prof. Dr. Klaus Kreiser and
Alexandre Popovic, the Mevlevihans in Middle East and North Africa geography are in Syria are; Sham, Aleppo,
Hama, Humus and Lazkiye, Tripoli in Lebanon, in Iraq; Baghdad, Kirkuk (Shahrizor) and Mosul (Mavshil), In
Saudi Arabia; Mecca and Medina, Tabriz in Iran, Benghazi in Libya, Cairo in Egypt, Jerusalem in Palestine (Önder,
1994).

The most popular country of Mevlevism in the Middle East is Syria. However, some of the Mevlevihans in the
country were completely destroyed and some of the outbuildings besides the mosque parts have survived at the
devastated format. For example, although it is not known that there is a Mevlevihan in Hama, there are no artifacts
reached the day (Kuş, 2011). Another completely destroyed Mevlevihan is Lazkiye. There is no information
about Mevlevihan structure today. Humus Mevlevihan, one of the remaining Mevlevihan, only the mosque and
some building walls have remained today (Karpuz, 2007). Şam Mevlevihan built in 1585, is a mosque with the
Mevlevi tombs and sections that have turned into ruins which is still in use. Aleppo Mevlevihan, which was
established as an Asitane, has reached today with transformed Semahane into a mosque (Ürün, 2010). Tarblusşam
city, in the past Syria, now located on the Lebanese border is one of the cities with many Ottoman works (Akkaya,
2011). A large part of the Trablusşam Mevlevihan established in 1619 was destroyed during the Lebanon civil

pg. 280

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

war in 1985 (Glassen, 1996). It is understood from the historical sources that after the Syria, the region where
Mevlevihans is most in the Middle East is Iraq. However, information about Baghdad Mevlevihan is very limited.
In Evliya Çelebi’s travelogue, he mentioned the existence of Mevlevihans in Baghdad but he did not give any
information (Özçelik, 2012). In addition, the Mevlevihans known presence in Iraq are named Şehrizor (Kerkuk)
and Mavşil (Musul) in the historical sources. However, there is no information related to the buildings (Karpuz,
2010a). Beyond the Syria and Iraq in the Middle East and North Africa, the known Mevlevihans are Mecca,
Medina, Jerusalem, Tabriz, Cairo and Benghazi Mevlevihans. However, the information about the Mevlevihans
except Cairo and Jerusalem is extremely limited (Özçelik, 2012). It is not known exactly when the Mevlevihan
of Jerusalem was established, but it is understood from the historical records that it was active in 1539. Cairo
Mevlevihan was founded in the 16th century. It is important because it is on the way of pilgrimage and it is a
Asitane. It was built on the ruined Sungur Sadi Madrasah. The excavation and restoration work was carried out by
the delegation headed by the Prof. Dr. G. Fanfoni in 1979 (Karpuz et al., 2007).

4. Mevlevihans in Anatolia

Mevlevism, which started in Anatolia during the Seljuk period, spread throughout the country geography during the
Ottoman period. Later, after the declaration of the Republic, in 1925 Mevlevism was ended with the law of closure
of Tekkes and Zaviyes. In this process, apart from the Mevlevihans which’s semahane parts were built as mosque
in Anatolia, a few Tekke and some Mevlevihan which was built as Kulliye have survived. In other words, while
the Mevlevihans in the form of mosque-tekke can be used as mosques in large proportions, the Mevlevihans which
were built in the form of house-tekke have been lost their function after the closure of the Tekkes and Zaviyes.
Most of them have been demolished and only a few house-tekke Mevlevihan structures have been re-functioned to
museums, art galleries and similar cultural structures.

The Mevlevihans used as mosques today are; Afyon, Konya Cemel Ali Dede, Pı̂rı̂ Mehmet Paşa ve Şems-i Tebrizı̂,
Çorum, Karaman, Kütahya, Muğla, Tire, Edirne, Eskişehir, Kilis, Ankara, Gaziantep, Tokat, İstanbul Bahariye,
Yozgat, Urfa. The constructions that continue their function as the Quran course are the Nigde and Ermenek
Mevlevihans. We can list the Mevlevihans which re-functioned and in use are Konya Mevlâna Dervish House,
İstanbul Yenikapı and Galata Mevlevihans, Antalya, Manisa ve Gelibolu Mevlevihans (Seçkin, 2010).

5. Architecture and Classification of Mevlevihans

The words such as Külliye, Asitane, Dergâh, Hankah, Zaviye and Tekke, which are used incorrectly many times
together or replace with each other in Turkish, generally carry other concepts that they take in the process apart
from their purely word meaning. As word meanings often cause conceptual complexity, it is also very difficult
to determine the classification and general characteristics of these buildings and building groups. For example,
“Kulliye”, the meaning is a group of buildings consisting of two or more units with different functions derived
from the Arabic word ”Külli”, which begins to be seen in Seljuk period in Anatolia, became widespread in the
period of Beyliks and one of the main institutions of the Ottoman culture. However, this definition does not match
exactly with the term of the Kulliye. Many building groups such as the Topkapı Palace, which houses various
buildings in its own right, can not be called as Külliye. The main functions of the Kulliye and the basic structures
that fulfill these functions are; (Ahunbay, 2012).

Religion function: Mosque, tomb

Order Function: Hankah, Zaviye, Dervish Houses

Education-Teaching Function: Medrese, Darülhadis, Darülkurra, School Health Function: Hospital While

Nutrition-Shelter Function: Mess Hall, Banquet Hall, Orphanage, Guesthouse, Caravanserai, Fountain Cleaning
Function: Hammam, Bathroom

On the other side, the term used as ”Tekke” in Turkish is actually derived from Persian word ”Tekke” meaning

pg. 281

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

”to stay, to repose”. It is a common name used for all organizations related to religious sects. Tekke is the name
given to the place that the Dervishes of a sect are gathering, performing ceremonies and rituals, as well as it is a
general space used for all religious organizations related sects. It is necessary to draw attention to a point before the
general architectural features of the Tekkes are explained. Doğan (1977), explains this situation as follows in his
study “Ottoman Architecture, Sectical Constructions, Tekkes, Zaviyes and Futuvvet buildings”. The characteristics
of the Tekkes, which are the centers of organization and action of the sects, can be very different from each other
according to the shapes of the customs, traditions, rituals and dhikr of the sect. For this reason, it is impossible to
determine the common features that are valid for all the Tekkes (Doğan, 1977).

However, Tanman (2005) made a typology experiment in his work ”Sect Structures in Ottoman Architecture /
Dervish Lodges” according to the settlement layout for the Ottoman period Dervish Lodges. According to Tanman,
Dervish Lodges can be examined in 4 main groups.

Table 1. Classification of the Dervish Lodges According to the Settlement Layout (Tanman, 2005)

Dervish Houses by Settlement Layout
Group 1. The buildings;
which have open court-
yards, arcaded Ottoman
medresses, their deriva-
tives common courtyards
and a group of build-
ing with mosques and
medresses in the form of
Kulliye, Harem section
designed independently

Group 2. The buildings that sect cer-
emony place is separated from other
Tekke units and located in the direction
of Qibla
of the courtyard, the sections outside
the the Harem are distributed to the
other side of the courtyard and are de-
signed as scattered small Kulliyes

Group 3.
Buildings that its
sections which
reserved for
worship or visit
are in the same
building with all
or some sections
which reserved
for daily life,
designed to be
placed in the form
of a function
diagram

Group 4.
Cumulative and
organic structures
that have been
formed over
centuries by
adding many units
in the period of
Seljuk, Beylik and
Ottoman

Group 1.A. Sect cere-
mony place is a mosque
open to everyone’s use,
can be called as mosque-
tekke

Group 2.A. Buildings designed to be
used as mosques at the same time

Group 1.B. Sect cere-
mony place devoted for
Dervishes, Muhrips and
Züvvaras who lives in a
tekke

Group 2.B. The buildings that tombs
are closed to the sect ceremony places,
for this reason the buildings is not simi-
lar to mosque architecture and have the
sect structure characteristic

Mevlevihan is the name given to the Tekkes in the Mevlevi order. There are two kinds of Mevlevihane, which are
“Asitane” and “Zaviye”. Asitane is derived from the word ”Âsitân” which dictionary meanings are Dergah and Sill.
Asitane are the main Dergahs that develop “grandfather” with 1001 painful days of training. Konya Mevlana is the
most important and the main Dergah and the other main Dergahs named as the Asitanes are Afyonkarahisar, Man-
isa, Kütahya, Halep, İstanbul’da bulunan Galata, Yenikapı, Beşiktaş, Kasımpaşa, Bursa, Kastamonu, Eskişehir,
Kahire, Gallipoli ve Rumeli Yenişehir. In the structural sense, Asithanes are groups of complex buildings which
contain many functions together, whereas Zaviyes are smaller ones (Özçelik,2012).

Compared to the other sect Dervish Houses, Mevlevihans are more important and distinctive in terms of their
architecture and art history depending on their socio-cultural structures. A classification study similar to Tanman’s
work for Mevlevihans was carried out in Tanrıkorur’s Ph.D. thesis titled ”Architectural Characteristics of Turkey
Mevlevihans”. Tanrıkorur (2005), in his work which he classifies Mevlevihans in terms of settlement order in three
chapters, namely “Home-Dervish House”, “Dervish House-Mosque” and “Tomb-Semahane Linked”.

pg. 282

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 2. Classification of the Mevlevihanes Accordingto the Settlement Layout (Tanrıkorur, 2005)

Mevlevihans by the Semahane
Forms

Square and Rectangular Planned Polygon Planned Round Planned
Rectangle Octagonal Domed Circle
Smooth Rectangle Inside-Outside the Octagon Independent
Irregular Rectangle Inside Octagon Outside Rectangle Tomb Connected
Square Nonagon Non-Domed Trapezoid Circle
Domed Square Hexadecimal
Non-Domed Square
Corners Rounded Square
Rounded Square
Chopped Square

Mevlevihans
Group 1. Home-Tekkeler, all or some parts
of the sections related to the worship and
daily life are in the same structure, struc-
tures that resemble civil architecture

Group 2. The mosque-tekke, most
of them are double-functioned,
equipped with a minaret and the
last congregation place, the wor-
ship department is separated from
the other sections and usually a
courtyard located in the direction
of Qibla

Group 3. Tomb-Semahane
connected, worship part
connected to the tomb part
and independent from the
other parts of the Tekke,
other parts are usually ar-
ranged around a courtyard

Group 1.A. Built in 14th century during
the rule of Beyliks, middle asian origin,
have closed central courtyard, derived from
four-eyvan schemes and reminiscent of the
first ”House-Hankah” type sects in the Ho-
rasan region

Group 2.A. Built in the 15th cen-
tury, made of stone or brick, inde-
pendent, have minaret and the last
congregation place

Group 2.B. The buildings; com-
mon in 16-18 century, indepen-
dent, made of stone or brick,
single-domed, have minaret and
the last congregation place, usu-
ally a courtyard with Tekke sec-
tions located in the direction of
Qibla

Group 1.B. Constructed in 19th century,
most of them are wooden, similar to the
traditional Ottoman civilian architecture of
the region in terms of facade layouts and
architectur and ornament details.

Group 2.C. Constructed in 16-
18th century in Southeast Anato-
lia, single- domed, made of stone
or brick, do not have orginally
the last congregation place and
minaret

Continued on next page

pg. 283

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 3 continued
Group 2.D. Buildings built in the
19th century, wooden, indepen-
dent, and have Mukebbire and
Maksure or without mineret and
pulpit

Figure 2. Sarajevo,The İsabey Zaviye/ Example of Home - Tekke (TIKA, 2003)

Figure 3. Mevlevihan of Afyonkarahisar/Example of Mosque - Tekke (Ilgar, 2012)

Figure 4. Mevlevihanof Gelibolu / Example of Tomb - Semahane (Yazici, 2009)

pg. 284

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

When the architectural programs of the Mevlevihans are examined, it is seen that the Mevlevihans starting from
the 13th century have an architectural program after the 16th century and they take Konya Mevlana Dervish House
as an example. However, in the course of about three centuries, it is seen that many different constructions are
used as Mevlevihan. For example, the Mevlevihan of Jerusalem, which its Semahane part was built in 1586, it has
a very complicated architecture due to the fact that; it is built on an old church structure, the construction site is an
intensive settlement, inside of the walls of Jerusalem is sloping and used for different purposes in over time, When
the church was converted into Mosque, the main entrance gate on the direction of Qibla was canceled and the altar
was placed here. After Mevlevihan was captured by Mevlevi people, Semahane was built to the upper floor of the
mosque and a minaret was built to the eastern part of the Mevlevihan (Tütüncü, 2006). In another example, the
Mustafa Aga Mosque, built in 1759, which was used as Mevlevihan of Athens in the city center of Rome Agora,
was preserved as its minaret demolished. It is interesting that Semahane section of the Mevlevihan, was built as
an antique wind tower at the first half of the 1st century by the astronomer Andronikos from Macedonia-Kyrhos.
It is understood from the old engravings that the other parts of the Mevlevihan were built adjacent to the tower
(Karpuz, 2010).

Figure 5. .Mevlevihan of Athens (Kuş, 2011)

Figure 6. Mevlevihanof Jerusalem (Karpuz et al., 2007)

As a result, it is not possible to mention about the same size and features of spaces for all Mevlevihans. There
are similar parts in the large-scale Mevlevihans which are only in the Asitane status. These are; Dervish cells,
Meydan-i Şerif room; Matbah-ı Şerif room, Tilavet room, Semahane, mosque, library, Çelebi guesthouse (se-

pg. 285

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

lamlık), Hamuşan-graveyard-tomb, water facilities such as bath, Sebil, cistern-well. It can be found in different
sections such as Muvakkithane, Ayin-i Cem chamber, chat room in some Mevlevihans. In the small scale type of
Mevlevihans like Zaviye, the main places are the Semahane-mosque, the tomb and the Hamuşan (Dervish tombs)
(Kuş et al., 2006).

The main sections, which usually form the Mevlevihan, are located around a courtyard. The focal point of the
Mevlevihan is the Semahane-tomb-mosque triple. The mosque may have been included in the Semahane or as a
separate structure. Death in the Mevlevi lifestyle is accepted as a wedding, so there is a cemetery called ”Hamuşan”
which surrounds the Semahane and the tomb. Matbah-i Şerif, Meydan-ı Şerif and Dervish cells could be located
on the other side of the courtyard, either separately or as a whole. In the center of the courtyard there are water
facilities such as fountains, wells and cisterns.

When we examined the Asitanes, it is seen that Konya Mevlana Dervish House was taken as an example in the
context of space, and some changes were made according to the position of the Mevlevihans. In these structures,

while the tomb-Semahane-mosque triple is considered together, the Matbah, Dervish cells, Harem-Selamlık are
placed in a separate place. Such anxiety is not a concern in Zaviye structures. The room of Mevlevihan leader and
grandfathers are outside of the the Harim section and Hazire wall which surrounds the courtyard. Likewise some
Mevlevihans also have Selamlık-guesthouse sections. The main sections of the Mevlevihan, which have mentioned
the names above and the structures in special sections such as Haremlik-Selamlık reflect the architectural and
ornamental styles of their era.

Among the constructions that composes Mevlevihan, the most extroverted structure is Semahane. After the 18th
century, due to the increase of the guests and travelers, more attention was paid to Semahane. Semahane- mau-
soleum duo or only Semahane is considered as a separate structure. In this period, the Sema area is designed in
octagonal and circular form and the side galleries and the dome are decorated with great care, wood carving and
pencil work (Bird et al., 2006).

When the decisions of the location selection criteria of Mevlevihans are examined, it is seen that they are usually
built at the outside of the city, in secluded, airy and scenic locations. However, Mevlevihans which are interested
in love of Allah and nature, are preferred to be built outside of the city in order to stay away from the material
life, gossip and Mevlevi people say “avam” the people who do not understand the sect life, afterwards some of
the Mevlevihans have remained in the city because of the growth of the city. In addition, while most of the
Mevlevihans are located in residential areas, the Mevlevihans in the Southeastern region, Ayıntap (Gaziantep) and
Urfa Mevlevihans are surrounded by the shops and are located in the busiest commercial areas of the city. On the
other side, some of the Mevlevihans that were established in the neighborhoods where the Muslim population lived
in over time remained in the areas where non-Muslims lived (Tanrıkorur, 2000).

Factors affecting to Mevlevihan architecture can be grouped in the following subheadings.

– Function diagram;

Just as in all the buildings, the necessary functions and their connections with each other determine the architectural
programs and the outline of the settlement layout in the Mevlevihans. The most important distinction in Mevlevi-
hans at this point is that the Mevlevihan is a mosque-Tekke or a house-Tekke. In the mosque-Tekke Mevlevihans,
the place of worship has another function besides the sect ceremonies that, the people of the neighborhood pray in
it as a mosque. For this reason, the place of worship must be designed independently of the other departments, so
that it should be separated from the Tekke life which is in need of privacy. In the house-Tekke, the various sections
of the Mevlevihans (Harem, Selamlik, Dedegan cells etc.) are close to the place of worship and can even take place
in the same part.

On the other hand, there are some common points in the function diagrams of Mevlevihans, which arise from the
daily necessities, comfort and usability requirements or from the declaration principles of the day. For example,
while the connections of these sections become important because of the intense and complicated human traffic
between the Harem section where the leader of the Dergah’s family live, the Selamlık and the place of worship,

pg. 286

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

it is preferred that the Selamlık, Dedegan cells, Matbah, pantry, Somathane, Hammam sections are close to each
other because of the close relationship between the functions of housing, subsistence and sanitation. Also, it was
expected that sections such as water reservoir and cistern would be close to wet volumes; the stables and the cars
would be close to the entrances and the structures such as stables and hencoop would be away from the other parts
(Tanrıkorur, 2000).

– Traditions of the Sect;

Another important issue that shapes the relationship between spaces in Tekkes is Islamic teachings and the tradi-
tions that they originate from the sects. For example, in Mevlevihans, connections between the tombs and worship
sections are provided with doors, windows or wide arched openings. Even in some cases these sections are merged
in the same space. So in the eyes of Dervishes the image of the rituals being made personally in the ”presence” of
grandfathers and presiding the rituals by the enamoured Dervishes under the chests with their spiritual presence is
provided (Tanrıkorur, 2000).

– Land and land data;

The topography of the land on which Mevlevihans are located, the relation with the surrounding buildings, the
direction of view, the dimensions of the land can also affect the layout of the settlement. For example, on the less
sloping land the parts forming the Mevlevihan could be in the same structure, this structure is placed according to
the slope, if the slope is increasing, the land is separated by vertical retaining walls and land sets, and Mevlevihan
sections are placed on these sets as independent buildings. On the other hand, some of the Mevlevihan’s Semahane
part have a sea view, some of Mevlevihan’s plans were shaped according to the situation of the roads and buildings
which surrounds the land (Tanrıkorur, 2000).

– Economic factors;

The financial resources of Mevlevihans directly affected the architectural programs, their dimensions and the qual-
ity of the construction and decoration. The Mevlevihans, which are supported by rich foundations, are usually
consist of small sections scattered over a wide area, and the ones with modest resources are consist of small
buildings (Tanrıkorur, 2000).

6. Conclusion

Mevlevi Culture, which started in the 13th century, has reached the present day. However, the Mevlevihan ar-
chitecture, which reached its true identity in the 16th century, was almost completely lost in the Balkans and the
Middle East after the end of the Ottoman Empire because of the wars, ethnic identity debates and the influence
of time. In Anatolia, the House-Tekke type Mevlevihans in the form of a Zaviye has disappeared. Mevlevihans
which are Mosque -Tekke type have survived due to its mosque function and Mevlevihans shaped like a Külliye
has reached today due to its size. As a result, all of the Mevlevihans were built centuries ago and have gained the
feature of ancient monuments due to their architectural style. Keeping the Mevlevihans alive, which succeeded
to stand today and are not in use, by refunctioning them in terms of current conditions deals major significance
regarding to respect to the Mevlevi culture and continuation of social memory.

7. References

1. Ahunbay, Z., et al., Osmanlı Külliyelerinde Yerleşme Düzeni: Bir Tipoloji Denemesi, Selçuklular’dan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de Mimarlık, ed. Çiğdem Kafesçioğlu et al., İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, 2012, p.500-501

pg. 287

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

2. Akkaya, S., İpekyolu Medeniyetleri Dergisi, Türkiye Mühendisler ve Mimarlar Birliği Bülteni, Sayı 2,
Ankara, 2011, p.50-53

3. Bakirci, N., Türkan H.K., Tekke ve Zaviyelerin Balkanlar’daki Rolü ve Önemi, Dil, Edebiyat ve Halkbilimi
Araştırmaları Dergisi, Yıl:1, Sayı:1, 2013, p.145-160

4. Demirci, S., Ösen, S., Osmanlı Devleti’nin Balkanlardan Çekilmesi Sürecinde Mevlevihanelerin Durumu:
Yenişehir (Larissa) Mevlevihanesi Örneği, SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:26,
2012, p.1-6.

5. Doğan, A.I., Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarikat Yapıları, Tekkeler, Zaviyeler ve Benzeri Fütüvvet Yapıları, İTÜ
Müh-Mim. Fakültesi Matbaası, İstanbul, 1977, p.59-99.

6. Glassen, E., Tarblusşam Mevlevihanesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 2, Konya,
1996, p.27-29

7. Gölpinarli, A., Mevlana’dan Sonra Mevlevilik, İnkilab Kitapevi, İstanbul, 1983, p.334

8. Göre , Z., Belgrad Mevlevı̂hânesi Şeyhi Adnı̂ Receb Dede ve Nahl-i Tecellı̂’si, Birinci Uluslararası Mevlânâ,
Mesnevı̂ ve Mevlevı̂hâneler Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 19-21 Aralık 2001-Manisa Mevlevı̂hânesi, T.C. Celâl
Bayar Üniversitesi, Manisa Yöresi Türk Tarihi ve Kültürünü Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, Manisa, 2002,
p. 317-323.

9. Ilgar Y., Karahisar-ı Sabib Sultan Divani Mevlevihanesi ve Mevlevi Meşhurları, Afyonkarahisar Belediyesi
Yayın No:14, Afyonkarahisar, 2012, p.40

10. Kara, İ., Hanya Mevlevihanesi: Şeyh Ailesi-Müştemilatı-Vakfiyesi, İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 1,
1997, p.115-173

11. Karpuz H., Şimşek F., Kuş A., Dıvarcı İ., Kahire Mevlevihanesi, Dünya Mevlevihaneleri, Konya Valiliği İl
Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Yayını, Konya, 2007, p.141

12. Karpuz H., Türkiye Dışındaki Osmanlı Mevlevihanelerine Toplu Bakış, Dünya Mevlevihaneleri, Konya
Valiliği İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Yayını, Konya, 2007, p.70

13. Karpuz H., Balkan Mevlevihaneleri, Kıbrıs Yakın Doğu Rûmi Enstitüsü Mevlana Sempozyumu, 2009,
Lefkoşa

14. Karpuz H., Kerkük Mevlevihanelerinden Günümüze Kalanlar, Merhaba Akademik Sayfalar Dergisi, Cilt 10,
Sayı 13, 2010, p.196-197

15. Karpuz H., Balkanlar’daki Mevlevı̂hânelerden Günümüze Kalanlar, SÜMAM Yayınları: 5, Bildiriler Serisi:
2, Dünyada Mevlana İzleri, 2010, p.427-445

16. Kuş A., vd., Türkiye Mevlevihaneleri, Konya: İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Yayın No:107, 2006, p.18-23

17. Kuş A., Dünya Mevlevihanelerine Yolculuk, Karatay Akademi Yayınları, Konya, 2011, p.40, 212-213

18. Küçük S., XIX. Asırda Mevlevilik ve Mevleviler, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 2000, p. 274

19. Molnar J., Macaristan’daki Türk Anıtları, Ankara, 1993

20. Önder M., Konya’da Mevlana Dergahı Merkez Arşivi ve Mevlevihaneler, ISAM The Journal of Ottoman
Studıes XIV, Sayı 14, 1994, p.137-142

21. Özçelik M., Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesinde Mevlana, Mevlevilik ve Mevlevihaneler, Rumi Yayınları,
Yayın No:69, Konya, 2012, p.127

pg. 288

Şehmuz / The Academic Research Community Publication

22. Popović A., “Les Derviches Balkaniques Hier et Aujourd’hui”, Les Mevlevihane Dans Le Sud-Est Europeen,
Ed. Isis, İstanbul, 1994, p.264

23. Sancaktar C., Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Balkanlar’daki Kültürel ve Demografik Mirası, Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 5, Sayı 2, 2012, p.53-93

24. Seçkin A., Türkiye’deki Önemli Mevlevı̂hâneler ve Mevlevı̂hânelerin Yaşatılmasında Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğünün
Rolü, SÜMAM Yayınları: 5, Bildiriler Serisi: 2, Dünyada Mevlana İzleri, 2010, p.1-45

25. Tanman, B., 2005, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarikat Yapıları/Tekkeler, Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvuf ve Su-
filer, ed. A.Yaşar Ocak, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p.315

26. Tanrikorur, B., Türkiye Mevlevı̂hanelerinin Mimarı̂ Özellikleri, c.1-Metin, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, 2000, p.117-124

27. TİKA, http://www.tika.gov.tr/haber/tarihi-saraybosna-mevlevihanesi-yeniden-insaedildi/596, 2013

28. Tütüncü M., Kudüs Mevlevihanesi Tarihi ve Mimarisi, Uluslararası Düşünce Sanatta Mevlana Sempozyumu,
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi, 25-28 Mayıs, 2006, p. 700-703

29. Uz A., Saraybosna’da İsa Bey Mevlevihanesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 2,
Konya, 1996, p.103-106

30. Ürün A.K., Ortadoğu’da Mevlana ve Mevlevihaneler, SÜMAM Yayınları:5, Bildiriler Serisi:2, Dünyada
Mevlana İzleri, 2010, p.447–454

31. Yazici G.E., Gelibolu Mevlevihanesi ve Gelibolu’da Mevlevilik, Çanakkale: Çanakkale Kitaplığı Akademi
Yayını, 2009, p.13-17

pg. 289

Introduction
Mevlevihans in Balkans and Crimea
Mevlevihans in Middle East and North Africa
Mevlevihans in Anatolia
Architecture and Classification of Mevlevihans
Conclusion
References