In the story of Sofia’s nineteenth century, the earthquakes of 1818 and 1858 have traditionally been studied in a narrative of their own, outside the broader dimensions of the Ottoman context and the overall history of the period. Even though the destruction inflicted on Ottoman Sofia’s built fabric is part of this narrative, the earthquakes have predominantly been interpreted as a psychological trauma for the Bulgarian community, resulting from a breach in the harmonious relationship between the human and natural worlds. The idiosyncrasies of this approach of marginalizing the Ottoman sphere partially stem from the perception of the nineteenth century as a frontier, a period during which Sofia was becoming less Ottoman and more Bulgarian. Another explanation for the deficiency of the interpretive framework lies in the source base used – texts produced exclusively by Bulgarian authors, either as concise marginal notes on the pages of church books, or as lengthy contributions, especially in the case of the 1858 earthquake, to the burgeoning Bulgarian periodical press centered in the imperial capital, or as extensive correspondence exchanged between intellectuals otherwise involved in the movements for national emancipation of the Bulgarian Orthodox church and the advancement of Bulgarian education in the national language. In this narrative of nineteenth-century Sofians’ traumatic experience, the Ottoman sphere is notable for its passivity and degradation, physical and moral. This paper addresses nature as an agent in urban transformation, a powerful force that had a significant impact on the appearance of Sofia’s urban fabric at the end of Ottoman rule and the beginning of Bulgarian self-government. Problematizing the one-sided narrative elaborated by Bulgarian historiography, the paper introduces Ottoman sources for the first time in the study of nineteenth-century Sofia’s seismic history. The texts, produced in 1858, demonstrate how concern for urban renovation in the nineteenth century and a heightened sensitivity toward the state of the military forces led to the involvement of various local and central institutions in an effort to alleviate the consequences of natural disaster.

In the 1850s, the crucial parts of the water infrastructure in Istanbul were nearing a state of collapse, and complaints of deficient and bad water supply were of constant occurrence in the official ordinances and newspapers. Therein we find the Minister of Istanbul's Waterworks (su nâz?r?), Tevfik bey (d. 1859/ H. 1276), anxiously attempting to solve the problems of the city's water supply. His solution opened up one of the first corporate and institutional encounters between the Ottoman Empire and Europe. The scarcity of local capital led Tevfik bey to borrow money from Austro-Hungarian and French financiers for the rehabilitation of the dilapidated urban water supply systems of the Ottoman capital city. These foreign investors also sent hydraulic experts and engineers for the adoption of new technologies. Drawing on archival materials, local court records, as well as contemporary newspapers, this paper will examine the cultural, diplomatic, social and technological aspects of the continued encounters of a cadre of foreign hydraulic experts and local personnel, surveyors and peasants, entrepreneurs, political and technical elites in Istanbul during the second half the nineteenth century. By focusing on the relationship of this nineteenth-century Istanbul case to broader urban and social transformations, this paper seeks to facilitate historical comparisons between the interchange between local and foreign actors, the mutual constitution of the indigenous knowledge systems and expertise, pre-urban landscapes and urban infrastructures, and natural resources management and power unfolding in the Ottoman empire during the nineteenth century.

An inscription on a public drinking fountain commissioned by Abdulhamid II reads ‘it is the sultan-caliph who makes the decisions about highways, railroads, and telegraph lines and no longer the Europeans.’ This inscription reveals the symbolic complexity of Ottoman modernity: how was it possible to adapt and incorporate infrastructure considered European in origin, and often operated by European companies, into the Ottoman nation-building project? In regards to water infrastructure, this project was further complicated by the increasing control of Ottoman water distribution rights by European companies. Debates in the French and English-language press, driven by these companies, often utilized scientific and medical discourse which questioned the reliability and safety of the Ottoman water supply in order to undermine the existing infrastructure. The construction of Hamidian fountains – both in Istanbul and in the Arab provinces of the Empire – was an attempt to meet these challenges. Stylistically, these fountains incorporated elements that exemplified the latest technical, material, and sanitary advances, whilst at the same time perpetuating the tradition of a uniquely Ottoman architectural form of urban water infrastructure. Examples of these changes included the use of cast-iron and machine fabricated parts, as well as the employment of steam power to pump water to the fountains. This paper will explore the role of sanitary, hygienic, and nationalistic discourses on the stylistic vocabulary and architectural form of the Hamidian fountain. I will focus primarily upon the Hamidian fountains of Istanbul, many of which are still extant, as well as upon select examples from Damascus, Beirut and other Ottoman cities. This presentation will draw upon a survey of French and English Ottoman newspapers from the second half of 19th century, as well as from examples of surviving fountains of the period.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, recurring epidemics of cholera, plague, and malaria in the Ottoman port city of Basra invited increased state intervention in matters of environmental management. Such intervention focused on improving flood control and reducing water pollution in Basra so as to improve the city’s sanitary conditions. At the same time, Ottoman sanitary authorities continued to promote the use quarantines at Basra as a way of inspecting individuals arriving from Qajar Iran and British India – locations which the Ottoman government believed to be the primary exporters of cholera and plague in particular. As the Ottoman government’s use of quarantines represented a threat to British commercial interests in the Gulf, British authorities increasingly urged Ottoman authorities to focus on improving Basra’s sanitary conditions, rather than rely on quarantines, which a growing scientific consensus began to view as ineffective in preventing cholera epidemics in particular. As such, the relationship between Basra’s ecology and the city’s susceptibility to epidemics became matters of heated debate among Ottoman and British officials. Despite the extent to which Ottoman sanitary authorities were aware of the ways in which Basra’s ecology itself was a contributing factor in the region’s susceptibility to epidemics, the Ottoman government’s own environmental awareness has been obscured by scholarship that has focused on documenting the evolution of the Ottoman quarantine program during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This paper seeks to highlight that environmental awareness by arguing that quarantines were just one tool in a broader Ottoman strategy to combat epidemics in Basra. While quarantines did represent a threat to British commercial interests, they were primarily used by Ottoman authorities to combat regional sanitary threats during specific outbreaks. Moreover, the Ottoman government’s use of quarantines in no way precluded the implementation of sanitary policies focused on improved environmental management. By highlighting the Ottoman government’s complex and flexible approach to the problem of recurring epidemics Basra, this paper contributes to our knowledge of late Ottoman health policy by demonstrating the importance of local and environmental conditions in shaping Ottoman understandings of disease. By emphasizing the local, this paper also helps us move beyond analyses that focus on the broader evolution of the late Ottoman sanitarian state without regard to the ways in which local conditions influenced policy making in the Ottoman imperial capital.