How did you learn about the passing of Machiel Kiel, who is renowned for his significant and original contributions to Balkan history?

When I heard the news yesterday morning, I was truly saddened. His final days had been rather difficult. I learned from his wife—who is also a distinguished colleague—Hedda Kiel, that due to illness he had been residing in a nursing home. I had sent her a photograph of us together, to which she replied, “Professor İpşirli no longer recognizes those around him. But perhaps, upon seeing this picture, he may suddenly recognize.” Naturally, we were deeply grieved by his passing. May God, if He wills, have granted him guidance. In our tradition, when referring to non-Muslims, documents often include the phrase—expressed in the form of a prayer—that you also know: Hutimet avâkibuhu bi’l-hayr. That is, “May God bring his end to goodness, and transform it into good.” I wish to emphasize this especially for our colleague Machiel Kiel.

When and under what circumstances did your first contact with Machiel Kiel take place?

Our acquaintance began in the 1970s at the Prime Ministry Archives. He would often ask his colleagues questions about documents he was unable to read, and thus we had occasional conversations. However, our genuine familiarity and closer relationship developed through İSAM, via the Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. At that time, we were considering, “To whom shall we entrust the entries on Balkan cities?” We were primarily assigning Professor Semavi Eyice to write on architectural works in Türkiye. Since we were also acquainted with Machiel Kiel, we thought, “Let us commission him with one or two trial articles and see how he writes.” We did not know exactly how he would approach the task.

The entries he produced pleased us greatly. If I recall correctly, he began with the entry on Athens under the letter A. Afterwards, more followed. This was particularly significant for us, since the Ottoman Empire is widely recognized as a Balkan state, indeed as a European state. Europeans themselves emphasize this point even more frequently than we do. It was therefore essential that our historical presence in the region be presented appropriately—without advertisement or propaganda. And the fact that Ottoman monuments there were described by a foreign scholar lent the work an additional layer of value. A Muslim or a Turk, of course, might risk exaggeration, and such issues naturally arise.

In the end, we commissioned him with over one hundred entries. With each new article, he opened up further, drawing attention to important aspects. Kiel spoke Turkish fluently, but his academic language was English. He was originally Dutch. He had begun these pursuits as an amateur, working on the restoration of various monuments. Later—if I am not mistaken, sometime in the 1980s—he completed his doctorate.

How do you evaluate the historical development of interest in Ottoman architecture in the Balkans within Türkiye’s academic and intellectual circles? In this context, how would you position Kiel’s work?

Ottoman architecture in the Balkans represents one of our greatest treasures. Although independent states have now been established there, and we recognize the independence of each, that region remains our geography of the heart, our geography of culture. We never forget it. Two essential elements stand out there: one is the architectural heritage, the other is the presence of our people. Some are Turks, some are Muslims—Albanian Muslims, Macedonian Muslims, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Pomaks, and others. These two resources are of immense importance to us—not only for the past but, more importantly, for the future. That is why we were so pleased that Machiel Kiel dedicated himself wholeheartedly to this subject.

It should be emphasized, however, that this interest did not begin with Machiel Kiel. Before him, the late Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi—who was truly a monumental figure—conducted extensive field research in the Balkans during the 1970s, with the support of the Ministry of Culture and a large team. They photographed all the monuments they encountered, spoke with local people, and upon returning, did not stop there. They delved into the archives, researching the documents of the very same monuments. In addition, they made use of works by Evliya Çelebi, Kâtib Çelebi, as well as various Western travelers. As a result, Ayverdi produced five monumental volumes under the title Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari Eserleri(Ottoman Architectural Monuments in Europe).

In the introduction to his work, he even mentions the late Machiel Kiel. If I remember correctly, this occurred in the 1960s, though I am not entirely sure. He writes something to the effect of: “A young Dutchman came. He was very curious, eager, and asked us many questions, trying to gather information. But I could not follow what became of him afterward.” Thus, Kiel had an early beginning with regard to the study of Ottoman monuments in Europe.

When writing his articles, Machiel Kiel knew those places intimately, step by step. He constantly traveled through the region. In fact, he came to be regarded as an undesirable figure in both Greece and Bulgaria. The reason, as he himself recounted, was accusations such as: “Whose man are you? You are working in favor of the Turks. You are always trying to bring these things to the forefront.” He stated that, from time to time, he faced harassment and pressure for this very reason.