Advertisement

Planning Challenges for Archaeological Heritage

  • Burak Belge
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

The cultural and historical accumulation of various cultures and their socio-spatial development throughout history have left behind numerous archaeological sites in contemporary Turkey. Some of the more popular ones, Çatalhöyük, Ephesus, Hierapolis, Troy, Hattusa, Pergamon, Aphrodisias and, more recently, Göbekli Tepe, which is a unique site that has dramatically changed the understanding of human history, are listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. At all such sites, the primary concerns are related to site management, and these can be resolved through the provision of basic guidance and tools rather than through urban and regional planning strategies. This article focuses on the problems and recent planning discussions in urban or regional contexts related to the conservation of archaeological heritage. The article begins by discussing the current legislation and administrative framework to provide an understanding of recent planning issues in Turkey. Finally, the main themes of the article are two particular planning challenges related to archaeological heritage in Turkey—large-scale projects that threaten archaeological heritage and multi-layered historic city centres—which will be discussed in detail supported by case studies as İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Antakya, Tarsus and Bergama.

Keywords

Multi-layered settlements Archaeological heritage Urban conservation 

References

  1. Alpan A (2013) Urban restructuring process of antalya walled-town and the roles of stakeholders. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi (2018) Ören Yerleri/archaeological sites. http://www.anadolumedeniyetlerimuzesi.gov.tr/TR,77790/oren-yerleri.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  3. Ancient City of Smyrna (2018) Ancient City of Smyrna excavation - research - restoration project. http://www.antiksmyrna.com/default.aspx. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  4. Arkitera (2018) Koruma Bölge Kurulları. http://v3.arkitera.com/news.php?action=displayNewsItem&ID=3525. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
  5. Aru KA (1998) Türk Kenti (Türk Kent Dokularının İncelenmesine ve Bugünkü Koşullar İçinde Değerlendirilmesine İlişkin Yöntem Araştırması. Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  6. Arusoğlu Erözkan Z (2013) Çok katmanlı kentlerde kimlik sorunsalı: Palimpsest bir kentsel alan olarak Ulus örneğinin incelenmesi. Dissertation, Istanbul Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Assenat M (2012) Amida Restituta. In: Gasse A, Servajean F, Thiers C (eds) Aegypto, et ad Aegyptum, Recueil d’Études dédiées à Jean-Claude Grenier, CENiM, Montpellier, PULM, pp 7–52Google Scholar
  8. Belge B (2004) Çok Katmanlı Tarihi Kent Merkezlerinin Yönetimi: Kentsel Arkeoloji ve Planlama. TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Planlama Dergisi 4:48–56Google Scholar
  9. Belge B (2005) Urban archaeological issues and resources in İzmir historic city centre: an exploratory case study. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Belge B (2012a) Handling sub-soil urban archaeological resources in urban planning, Issues in İzmir historic city centre. METU-JFA 29(2):331–50Google Scholar
  11. Belge B (2012b) The effects of local conservation capacity to the maintenance of historic city centres as a governance process: Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa Case Study Areas. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Belge B (2013) Türkiye’de Kentsel Arkeolojik Değerlerin Kent Yaşamına Katılımı Sorunsalı; Antakya Tarihi Kent Merkezi Örneği. In: Levent and Uçar (eds) Mersin’den Mimarlık Planlama Tasarım Yazıları, Mersin University Publishing, Mersin, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  13. Belge B (2016) Development of a methodological framework for handling urban archaeological resources: Tarsus Historic City Centre, Turkey. Conserv Manag Archaeol Sites 18(4):422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Belge B (2017) Issues in integrating urban archaeological resources into planning process: Tarsus historic city centre. METU-JFA 34(2):59–91Google Scholar
  15. Belge B, Aydınoğlu Ü (2017) Evaluating Tarsus’s spatial structure in roman times as a planning basemap. MEGARON 12(3):460–74Google Scholar
  16. Bilgin G (1996) Urban archaeology: as the bases for the studies on the future of the town case study: Bergama. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Bilgin (Altınöz) G (2002) Assessment of historical stratification in multi-layered towns as a support for conservation decision-making process; A geographic information systems (GIS) based approach case study: Bergama. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Bilgin (Altınöz) G, Binan DU, Pirson F (2016) Pergamon and its multi-layered cultural landscape, In: Ertürk N and Karakul Ö (eds) UNESCO World Heritage in Turkey, Ankara, pp 342–377Google Scholar
  19. Binan Ulusoy D (2016) Traditional residential architecture of bergama in the context of urban archaeology and multi-layered cultural heritage. In: Ahunbay Z, Mazlum D, Eres Z (eds) Conservation of cultural heritage in Turkey. ICOMOS-TURKEY, İstanbul, pp 297–323Google Scholar
  20. Cadoux CJ (1938) Ancient Smyrna; A history of the city from the earliest times to 324 A.D. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Çağlayan D (1999) An assessment of urban archaeology and archaeological heritage: a case study in Ulus Ankara. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. Cerasi M (2001) Osmanlı Kenti Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Mimarisi. Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  23. Dericioğlu T, Tuna N (2003) Tarihi Suriçi (Diyarbakır/Türkiye) Merkezi’nin Kültürel Mirasın Korunması Göz Önüne Alınarak Kentsel Yenilenmesi ve Ekonomik Canlanması. GOPA-GTZ, EschbornGoogle Scholar
  24. Downey G (1958) The size of the population of Antioch. In: Trans Proc Am Phil Assoc 89:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Downey G (1963) Ancient antioch. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Eriçok Keleş A (2012) Impact of land use changes on the authentic characteristics of historical buildings in bursa historical city centre. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Etyemez L (2011) Assessing the integration of historical stratification with the current context in multi-layered towns case study: Amasya. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Gök T, Belge B (2016) Tarsus city: conservation issues of a multi-layered cultural heritage. In: Ahunbay Z, Mazlum D, Eres Z (eds) Conservation of cultural heritage in Turkey. ICOMOS-TURKEY, İstanbul, pp 325–348Google Scholar
  29. Hovardaoğlu Çalışır S (2009) Tarihi Süreklilikte Kentsel Katmanlaşmanın Belgelenmesi Bağlamında Kayseri Kent Merkezi. Dissertation, Istanbul Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  30. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi (2012) Yenikapı Kazıları Resmi İnternet Sayfası. http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/…/muze/kazilar/yenikapi_kazilari. Accessed 1 Feb 2012
  31. Kadıoğlu M, Görkay K (2007) Yeni arkeolojik araştırmalar ışığında μητρόπολιςτῆςΓαλατίας: Ankyra. Anadolu/Anatolia 32: 21–151. http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/14/722/9120.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2017
  32. Köprülü Bağbancı Ö (2007) Bursa Hanlar Bölgesi Değişim Ve Dönüşüm Sürecinin Incelenmesi ve Bölgenin Korunması Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Dissertation, Yıldız Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuban D (2001) İzmir’in Tarihsel Yapısının Özellikleri ve Koruması ile İlgili Rapor, Türkiye’de Kentsel Koruma; Kent Tarihleri ve Koruma Yöntemleri. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 49–105Google Scholar
  34. Kuban D (2001) Türkiye’de Kentsel Koruma. Kent Tarihleri ve Koruma Yöntemleri, Tarih Vakfı, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  35. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzelere Genel Müdürlüğü (2018a) Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma Bölge Kurulu Müdürlükleri. http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,43078/kultur-varliklarini-koruma-bolge-kurulu-mudurlukleri.html,%20accessed%20in%2010%20March%202018. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
  36. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzelere Genel Müdürlüğü (2018b) Türkiye Geneli Sit Alanları İstatistikleri. http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,44973/turkiye-geneli-sit-alanlari-istatistikleri.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
  37. Leblanc J, Poccardi G (1999) Etude de la permanence des tracés urbains et ruraux antiques à Antioche-sur-l’Oronte. Syria 76(1):91–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Madran E (1996) Cumhuriyetin İlk Otuz Yılında (1920–1950) Koruma Alanının Örgütlenmesi-1. METU-JFA 16(1–2):59–97Google Scholar
  39. METU-TAÇDAM (Centre for Research and Assessment of Historic Environment) (2018a). TAÇDAM Publications. http://tacdam.metu.edu.tr/tacdam-publications. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  40. METU-TAÇDAM (Centre for Research and Assessment of Historic Environment) (2018b). Archaeological Research and Assessment for Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project. http://tacdam.metu.edu.tr/archaeological-research-and-assessment-baku-tbilisi-ceyhan-crude-oil-pipeline-project. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  41. Morey CR (1936) The excavation of antioch-on-the-Orontes. Proc Am Philos Soc 76(5):637–651Google Scholar
  42. Ökesli Saban D (2009) Hermann Jansen’s planning principles and his urban legacy in Adana. METU-JFA 26(2):45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Özdoğan M (2013) Dilemma in the archaeology of large scale development projects: a view from Turkey. Pap Inst Archaeol 23(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özdoğan M, Eres Z (2016) A view from Turkey on the Valletta and Faro conventions: effectiveness, problems and the state of Affairs. In: Florjanowicz P (ed), When Valletta meets Faro. The reality of European archaeology in the 21st century. EAC Occasional Paper No. 11Google Scholar
  45. Özyiğit Ö (1992) Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Yasası Üzerine. Ege Mimarlık 1992(3-4):22–27Google Scholar
  46. Şahin F (2015) Tepebağ Höyük, 2014–2015 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları. 37. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2.Cilt, 11–15 Mayıs 2015, Erzurum: 191–208Google Scholar
  47. Savacı Gökbulut Ö (2002) The design of spatio-temporal database model for representation of historical urban knowledge: an application for the city of Trabzon. Dissertation, Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Sagona A, Zimansky P (2009) Ancient Turkey. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  49. Tankut G (1993) Bir Başkentin İmarı: Ankara (1929–1939). Anahtar Kitaplar, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  50. Tankut G (2007) The Seljuk City. The Publications of the Faculty of Architecture, METU, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  51. Taşcı B (2015) Çok Katmanlı Yerleşimlerin Koruma Sorunlarının Foça Örneği Üzerinden İrdelenmesi. Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül UniversityGoogle Scholar
  52. Taşcı B, Akyüz Levi E (2016) Kent İçi Arkeolojik Alanlarda Kalıntıların Sunumuna İlişkin Yaklaşımlar: Foça Örneği. İdealKent 19(7):588–627Google Scholar
  53. TAY (2018a) The archaeological settlements of Turkey. http://tayproject.org/enghome.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  54. TAY (2018b) The archaeological settlements of Turkey—Destruction Report. http://tayproject.org/raporeng.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  55. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2018a) İlke Kararları (Resolutions). http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,45465/36-nolu-ilke-karari-baraj-alanlarindan-etkilenen-tasinm-.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  56. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2018b) İlke Kararları (Resolutions). http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/yazdir?71A0CA146077058A3DFCD90DF1341B4A. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  57. TÜBA (2018), TÜBA-TÜKSEK Kültür Envanteri Projesi. http://www.tuba.gov.tr/tr/yayinlar/diger-yayinlar/tuksek-kultur-envanteri-projesi. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  58. Tuna N (1999a) Turkey. Report on the situation of urban archaeology in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp 217–28Google Scholar
  59. Tuna N (1999b) Batı Anadolu’da Geç Klasik dönem kentleşme hareketleri. International Symposium on Settlement and Housing in Anatolia through the Ages, Habitat II, June: 1996, Institute of Archaeology, İstanbul: 477–494Google Scholar
  60. Tuna N (2003) İstanbul Suriçi’nde kentsel arkeolojik kültür mirası, İstanbul Dergisi. Tarih Vakfı 46:88–93Google Scholar
  61. Tuna N (2016) Arkeolojik Değerlerin Kent Yaşamına Dahil Edilmesi: Tarsus Çalıştayı Üzerine Değerlendirme. In: Belge ZS, Belge B, Aydınoğlu Ü (eds) Arkeolojik Değerlerin Kent Yaşamına Dahil Edilmesi: Tarsus Çalıştayı, Mersin Üniversitesi-Kilikia Arkeolojisini Araştırma Merkezi (KAAM) Yayınları - 6, MersinGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuna N, Belge B (2013), Antakya Tarihi Kenti’nin Kentsel Arkeolojik Kaynakları için Öntespit Çalışmaları ve Değerlendirme. 4.Tarih İçinde Mersin Kolokyumu-2011/Akdeniz Kentleri: Gelecek için Geçmişin Birikimi, MersinGoogle Scholar
  63. Uggeri G (1998) The town planning of Antioch on the Orontes. J Ancient Topogr, n. VIIIGoogle Scholar
  64. UNESCO (2018a) Properties inscribed on the world heritage list, Turkey. http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/tr. Accessed 31 July 2018
  65. UNESCO (2018b) Tentative lists. http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/tr. Accessed 21 June 2018
  66. UNESCO (2018c) Pergamon and its multi-layered cultural landscape. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1457. Accessed 31 July 2018
  67. Üstün F (2008) Tarihsel Kaynaklara Göre Sinop Şehrinin Fiziksel Gelişimi (Antik Dönemden 19. Yy. Sonuna Kadar). Dissertation, Karadeniz Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiener-Müller W (2001) İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası. Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams T (2015) Archaeology: reading the city through time. In: Bandarin F, van Oers R (eds) Reconnecting the city: the historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage. Chicester, Wiley, pp 19–44Google Scholar
  70. Yerasimos S (2000) İstanbul. İmparatorluklar Başkenti, Tarih Vakfı, İstanbulGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningMersin UniversityMersinTurkey

Personalised recommendations