Draç’in Fethi (1501), Oruç Bin-i Âdil Vakayinâmesi ve Isâbey-oğlu Mehmet Çelebi
The conquest of Durazzo (1501), the Chronicle of Ūrūc Bin-i ‘Ādil and ‘Īsā bėg-ogli Mehemmed bėg Çelebī

Summary/Abstract: In this paper, the author provides an analysis of a report concerning the conquest of the Venetian Adriatic port of Durazzo by the Ottomans in 1501. The report was penned by the early Ottoman chronicler Ūrūc bini ‘Ādil (d. after 1502). The role of ‘Īsābėg-oġli Mehemmed Bėg Çelebī was given in detail in the aforementioned report. In order to establish the validity of the report as a historical source it was necessary to provide a summary of reinterpratation of the role of Bāyezīd II (1481-1512) in the history. Further, it was necessary to provide a survey of the long-term role of the port of Durazzo both in the Mediterranean and in the Balkan history. Only after that it was methodologically appropriate to turn to the source-critical comparative analysis of Ūrūc bin-i ‘Ādil’s report. Via comparison with the contemporary Venetian and Ragusan archival sources a high-degree trustability of Ūrūc bin-i ‘Ādil’s report is established. Most probably, Ūrūc bin-i ‘Ādil was an eyewitness of the event. In connection with that the paper provides criticism and refutation of the neo-Orientalism as expressed in the approach to the Ottoman history in works of the British scholar Colin Imber and his followers. A sketch of the biography of Mehemmed Bėg Çelebī is given, too. Following the research results of Ć. Truhelka, H. Šabanović, T. Popović, B. Zlatar, the author used as well the data from the Ottoman, Ragusan and Venetian sources. One of the main findings of the paper is uncovering of the genuine identity of the endower of the Burmali Mosque in Skoplje (Üsküp), purposely demolished by the Yougoslav Kingdom’s admimistration in 1925. The genuine endower of the mosque was our Mehemmed Bėg Çelebī. Altough the state of knowledge about the biography of Mehemmed Bėg Çelebī has gotten improved with this paper, huge and multifaceted sources indicate that this person should be studied separately, in a scope of the special monograph.

• Details
• Contents