Building Masters, Tradition, and Terminology in the Vernacular Architecture Around Lower Orontes (Asi) Basin in Hatay Province
Ender ÖzbayThis study aims to document, examine, and evaluate the intangible data regarding the traditional architectural culture in the region that can be defined as the rural environment of Antakya, the central district of Hatay province on the Eastern Mediterranean coastline. This study has been carried out in the field from time to time since 2006 and is based on data obtained through research, interviews, and oral history studies. The compiled data on the actors in traditional architecture (i.e., architects and building masters) and the intangible components of architectural culture (i.e., terminology and building traditions) around Antakya are classified and presented in two large tables, one including 29 names of architects and masters and related information, and the second with 123 terms and idioms and their explanations. During the study, the researcher paid attention to having the people interviewed about terminology be above a certain age; not have been affected by different cultures, languages and traditions outside their own region; not be active users of technological communication opportunities; and be predominantly people who are engaged in activities and have knowledge related to the field of building and construction. Thus, the study has attempted to reach true information, terms, and idioms belonging to the tradition. Some of the architects and craftsmen mentioned in this compilation are understood to have actively worked between the late-19th and mid-20th centuries. The terms compiled in this study have been compared to the terms concerning traditional folk building art from the surrounding city centers, such as from Mersin, Adana, Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, and Aleppo. The names, activities, and terminology of the architects who were compiled and evaluated suggest that traditional architecture in the region had the characteristics of a school that possessed and transmitted certain standards. In particular, the terminology is worth emphasizing as an important indicator of whether such a specifically qualified professional specialization had existed.
Hatay - Aşağı Asi Havzası Kırsal Mimarisinde Yapı Ustaları, Gelenekleri Ve Terminolojisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma
Ender ÖzbayBu çalışma, Aşağı Asi Havzası’ndaki Antakya’nın kırsal çevresinde geleneksel mimarlık kültürünün somut olmayan verilerine ilişkin belgeleme, irdeleme ve değerlendirme gayesiyle kaleme alınmıştır. 2006’dan bu yana dönem dönem sahada gerçekleştirilen araştırma; inceleme, söyleşi ve sözlü tarih çalışmalarıyla elde edilen verilere dayanmaktadır. Yöredeki geleneksel mimarlığın aktörleri (mimarlar / ustalar) ve yapım kültürünün somut olmayan bileşenleri (terminoloji ve yapım gelenekleri) hakkındaki derleme verileri (biri 29 mimar/usta ismi ve ilgili bilgileri sunan, bir diğeri 123 terim/deyim ve açıklamalarını içeren) iki geniş tabloda sunulmuştur. Araştırma sürecinde, terminoloji konusunda görüşülen kişilerin belli bir yaşın üzerinde olmasına, ayrıca kendi yöresi dışında farklı kültür, dil ve geleneklerden fazla etkilenmemiş, teknolojik iletişim imkânlarının aktif kullanıcısı olmamış, ağırlıklı olarak da yapı-yapıcılık alanıyla ilgili faaliyeti-bilgileri olan kişiler olmasına dikkat edilmiştir. Böylece, gerçekten geleneğe ait bilgi, terim ve deyimlere erişilmeye çalışılmıştır. Derlemede geçen geleneksel mimar ve ustaların 19. yüzyıl sonları ile 20. yüzyıl ortaları arasında faaliyet göstermiş oldukları anlaşılmıştır. Bu çalışmada derlenen terimler Mersin, Adana, Antep, Urfa, Halep gibi çevre merkezlerin geleneksel halk yapı sanatı terimleriyle karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları, yöredeki geleneksel mimarlığın belirli standartlara sahip, bilgisini sonraki nesillere aktaran bir “okul” özelliği de kazanmış olduğunu düşündürmektedir. Özellikle de terminoloji, nitelikli mesleki uzmanlaşma olup olmadığının önemli bir göstergesi olarak vurgulanmaya değerdir
This study aims to document, examine, and evaluate the intangible data regarding the traditional architectural culture in the region that can be defined as the rural environment of Antakya, the central district of Hatay province on the coast of the Eastern Mediterranean. This study has been carried out in the field sporadically since 2006 and is based on data obtained through research, interviews, and oral history studies. The compiled data on the actors of traditional architecture (i.e., architects and building masters) and the intangible components of architectural culture (i.e., terminology and building traditions) around Antakya are classified and presented in two large tables, one including 29 names of architects and masters and related information, and the second having 123 terms and idioms and their explanations. During the study, the researcher noted that the people interviewed on terminology should be above a certain age; not have been affected by different cultures, languages, and traditions outside their own region; not be active users of technological communication tools; and be predominantly people who are engaged in activities and have knowledge of building and construction. Thus, the study attempted to reach the most legitimate information, terms, and idioms belonging to the tradition. Some of the architects and craftsmen mentioned in this compilation are understood to have actively worked between the late-19th and mid-20th centuries; however, the study does not include chronological information about all of them. As a result of the historical process, Arabic was basically the native language of the inhabitants of rural Antakya, especially along the Lower Asi River Basin. As one moves toward higher elevations, hillside settlements, and the city center, several forms (both dialects and accents) of Turkish and Arabic are seen to be dominant. Armenian used to be spoken in the villages of Moses Mountain (today only in the Vakıflı district). Turkish is the dominant language in the city center. As one moves away from the city center, noteworthily the terms are spoken in languages that were the mother tongue of the villagers from past generations. This is naturally due to the conservation of local rural life, which is inward-oriented and less related to the outside world. As one moves close to the city center, a blending begins to be perceived. In the city center, each language has separately maintained its own existence. As a result of coexistence and widespread agreement, terms were also observed to have been produced by blending Arabic and Turkish words and/or suffixes, especially with an understanding that would be appropriate for Elsine-i Selase [the three languages], namely Ottoman Turkish, which evolved, expanded, and was shaped throughout many Ottoman regions over the centuries.
Because Antakya is located in a region that is generally considered the Anatolian-Northern Syrian cultural interaction (transition) belt by researchers who have studied Ottoman and Turkish housing architecture, as well as being considered alongside historical cultural centers such as Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, Halep, and Adana, the terms compiled in this study have been compared with the terms concerning traditional folk building art from the surrounding city centers of Mersin, Adana, Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, and Aleppo. In Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa, the terms tağa, kuş penceresi, mahmil, neccar, kapı arası, curun, and nhit/nahit are used with similar or close meanings. In Aleppo, terms such as kastal/kastel, beyt, maṣṭbe, ġırfe, ḥımmem, maṭbeḫ, seḳf, atbe, ʿatbe, bâb, blâṭ, mzeyyen, kıbbe, hacâr, and bırke are used with the same or close meanings. Some terms are also found to have the same pronunciation but different meanings. Not surprisingly, these peripheral centers intersect terminologically with their similarities regarding the dynamics of the cultural atmosphere throughout history. However, some terms suggestive of more macro interactions such as avda, sṭabıl, sḳāla, and draʿ almiʿmar have also been noted and evaluated. The study’s results have the potential to attract attention in terms of ethnicity and related linguistic and cultural factors; however, evaluating the issue within its historical context would be more appropriate. The names, activities, and terminology of the architects who have been compiled and evaluated suggest that traditional architecture in the region had the characteristics of a school that possessed and transmitted certain standards. In particular, the terminology is worth emphasizing as an important indicator of whether a specifically qualified professional specialization had existed.