Araştırma Makalesi

DOI :10.26650/artsanat.2019.12.0008   IUP :10.26650/artsanat.2019.12.0008    Tam Metin (PDF)

12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi

Alper Altın

Yağmur olukları, duvarı ve harcı çatıda biriken suların aşındırıcı etkisinden korumak için kullanılan bir mimari elemandır. Bunlar sade yapıldığı gibi figürlü olarak da yapılmışlardır. Figürlü yağmur olukları kültürlere göre farklı bir şekilde ele alınmıştır. Türk-İslam kültüründe su bereketle ilişkilendirilmektedir. Bundan dolayı çörtenler üzerinde bereketle tasavvur edilen figürler görülmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra güçle ilintili figürler de kullanılmıştır. Batı’da Ortaçağ Hıristiyan inancında ise su, dinen olumsuz anlamda düşünülmüştür. Ayrıca su yapıya zarar verdiği için musibetle ilişkilendirilen figürler gargoylelerde kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda Anadolu ve Avrupa’daki figürlü yağmur olukları genel olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmamız ile Doğu ve Batı’da ayrı sembolik anlamlara sahip bu yağmur oluklarının benzer ve farklı özellikleri ortaya çıkarılmak istenmiştir. Konuyu sınırlamak amacıyla 12. ve 14. yüzyıllar tercih edilmiştir. Bu zaman aralığı Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler dönemi ile Gotik döneme denk gelmektedir.

DOI :10.26650/artsanat.2019.12.0008   IUP :10.26650/artsanat.2019.12.0008    Tam Metin (PDF)

A Comparison Experiment on the Figures of the Rainspout in Gothic Architecture and Turk-Islam Architecture in the 12th and 14th Centuries

Alper Altın

Waterspouts are an architectural element that are used to protect the wall and mortar from the corrosive effect of water accumulated on the roof. Figured waterspouts are handled differently depending on cultures. In Turkish-Islamic culture, water is associated with fertility. Therefore, figures that are associated to abundance are seen on cortens. In addition, power-related figures were also used. However, in Medieval Western Christian belief, water run through the minds negativeness. In addition, because the water damages the structure, the figures associated with evil are represented as gargoyles. In this context, figured waterspouts in Anatolia and Europe are examined in general. In our study, it is aimed to reveal similar and different characteristics of these waterspouts which have distinct symbolic meanings in East and West. In order to limit the subject, 12th and 14th centuries are especially choosen. This time period corresponds to the Anatolian Seljuks, Principalities period and the Gothic period. 


Water is the source of life for all living things. Because of our need for water, mankind has always seen water as a sacred element throughout history. Water, over artifacts and monuments symbolized life, healing, fertility, strength, beauty and enjoyment. It was seen as sacred in Turkey and was believed to be the spirit of water. In addition, water was associated with fortune, life, soul, chance, fortune, conscience, and character. In Turkish culture and the Islamic faith, water and rain are considered as the source of life and abundance. In Turkish-Islamic architecture, waterspouts are called corten. Waterspouts protected mortar and masonry walls from corrosive effects by getting rid of rain and snow water away from the wall and foundation. In the Anatolian Seljuks and Dynasties periods, a large part of the cortens in architectural works was made simple and another was meant to be figurative. The pre-Islamic and Islamic beliefs of Turks determined their view of water. Cortens was produced positively in the context of these religious beliefs. It is known that the cortens, especially those with figures, are made with symbolic purposes such as fertility, abundance, happiness, and power. Therefore, the figures are in direct relation with these concepts. The usage of animal figures was avoided apart from these meanings. Although Islamic belief and Turks perceived water positively, the Christian faith and the Latins perceived water as positive in the spiritual direction and negative in the material direction. Sacred water was used for religious rituals. No doubt the most important of these rites is baptism, which is seen as a spiritual cleansing rather than a material one and early Christians emphasized the spiritual aspect. During the Middle Ages, the Western Christian world did not accept bathing as an innocent practice leaving out it in religious rituals. Many monks and saints believed St. Francis of Assisi’s idea that an unwashed body is a sign of piety! For this reason, Western society avoided water except for the occasional bath. In the 12-14th centuries, the works of Gothic architecture started in Europe. In this architectural understanding in which religious structures are predominant, buildings tend to rise vertically. In Gothic architecture, the waterspouts represented as figures that provide the evacuation of rain water are called gargoyles. The gargoyles have a terrifying psychological effect on the believer. These are mostly waterspouts with plastic properties made in the form of terrifying demonic creatures. In the medieval Christian world, the church taught religion to society through art. That is, art was made for the purpose of religious propaganda. In the Middle Ages, the Church even resorted to the most formidable forms of evil in order to spread its religious teachings. Some gargoyles served as a moral reminder to sinners, and because gargoyles were thought to represent the souls condemned for their sins, it was suggested that sinners were forbidden to enter the church. By reflecting the horrible appearance of hell, Satan, which is an unconventional image that does not conform to the church, reminds people that they will be safe in the sacred church. Although some gargoyles are quite simple in design, the majority of them are decorated in detail. These are decorative carvings representing grotesque animals, birds, dragons, satyrs, mermaids, snakes, and many other themes. They can also be in the form of fascinating hybrids and mythical creatures such as semi-human semi-animal figures. The functional purpose of the gargoyles is the waterspout. The symbolic aim is to ward off evil. The waterspouts in religious and secular buildings served the same purpose in different architectures throughout the 12-14th centuries. The figured waterspouts are shaped differently in proportion to the value judgments, beliefs, traditions, cultural and architectural heritage of societies. Due to the ban on animal and human figures in Islamic architecture, the figured ornament was rarely seen. The Turks have a moderate approach to figurative ornaments due to their old beliefs. In the Anatolian Seljuk architecture, almost all the building groups have symbolic, mythological, astrological, cosmological and talismanic figures. We usually see figured ornament around openings such as doors and windows, but it is rarely encountered in the waterspouts. Cortens have symbolized power, strength in relation to protection while symbolizing goodness, abundance and mercy in relation to rain. The cortens associated with guardianship of religion generally had been located on facades trough the roads where people can see easily. In the cortens, animal or human figures can be seen. Animal figures include depictions of lions, rams and bulls. Mythical creatures include depictions of dragons. The lion is the symbol of strength; the rams and bulls are symbols of abundance, and the dragon symbolizes both abundance and power. The Abbey Church of Saint Denis in France is accepted as the first Gothic structure. The eastern section of the church was designed by Abbot Suger. The Western world inherited the Greek, Hellenistic, Etruscan and Roman architectures and adapted these ancient styles to gothic architecture. The understanding of ornaments in Gothic architecture developed in the scholastic thinking of the church. All the decorations around the religious buildings were made parallel to the teachings of the church. Emphasis on the instructional use of visual imageries, resulted in the creation of many monsters. The animal figured waterspouts were used in the western world by Greeks and Etruscans who especially preferred those with lion heads. The gargoyles depict a wide variety of animals and imaginary creatures that we tend to associate with evil. It is not a coincidence that they often have cloven hooves, bat wings, goat beards and horns. Gargoyles were consciously depicted as demons and associated with evil. The use of these figures in waterspouts caused them to consider water as a symbol of disaster and trouble. Since Turkish-Islamic architecture has a limited number of cortens showing figures, we tried to include all the samples. The cortens are classified according to the figures they depict. As there is a large number of gargoyles in Gothic Architecture, we included only a few samples. Some examples of gargoyles in churches or monasteries in different parts of Europe were compared. Similarities between these gargoyles were found in different structures. Finally, similar and different characteristics of the figured waterspouts in two separate cultures are indicated.

PDF Görünüm


  • ARSEVEN, Celal Esad, “Çörten”, Sanat Ansiklopedisi, C. 1, İstanbul 1983, s. 419-421. google scholar
  • ARSEVEN, Celal Esad, Türk Sanatı Tarihi Menşeinden Bugüne Kadar Mimari, Heykel, Resim, Süsleme ve Tezyini Sanatlar, İstanbul ty. google scholar
  • ARSLAN, Muhammet, Anadolu'da Selçuklu Çağı Cami ve Mescit Mimarisi (Plan-Mimari-Süsleme), Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Erzurum 2017. google scholar
  • ARSLAN, Muhammet, “Kars’ın Selim İlçesinde Bulunan Koç Heykeli Formlu Bir Mezar Taşının Düşündürdükleri”, Azerbaycanşinaslık: Geçmişi, Bugünü ve Geleceği Sempozyumu, Kars 2015, s. 799-836. google scholar
  • ASLANAPA, Oktay, Türk Sanatı, İstanbul 1999. google scholar
  • AYAYDIN, Abdullah, “Gotik Sanatı’na Yirmi Birinci Yüzyıl Perspektifinden Bir Bakış”, Ekev Akademi Dergisi, S. 44, Erzurum 2010, s. 117-125. google scholar
  • BARSCHT, Waltraud, “The Griffin”, Mythical and Fabulous Creatures A Sourcebook and Research Guide, New York 1988, s. 85-102. google scholar
  • BAYBURTLUOĞLU, Zafer, “Anadolu Selçuklu Devri Büyük Programlı Yapılarında Önyüz Düzeni”, Vakıflar Dergisi, S. 11, Ankara 1974, s. 67-106. google scholar
  • BEDROSSIAN, Matthias, New Dictionary Armenian-English, Venice 1879. google scholar
  • BEKSAÇ, Engin, Avrupa Sanatı’na Giriş, İstanbul 2000. google scholar
  • BELLİ, Oktay, “Türklerde Taş Heykel ve Balballar”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, C. 3, Ankara 2002, s. 910-914. google scholar
  • BERKLİ, Yunus, Erzurum ve Erzincan Çevresinde Görülen Koyun, Koç ve At Biçimli Mezar Taşları ve Sanat Tarihindeki Yeri, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Erzurum 2007. google scholar
  • Ca’fer Efendi, Risâle-i Mi’mâriyye, Haz. Aydın Yüksel, İstanbul 2005. google scholar
  • CHRIST, Darlene Threw, American Gargoyles: Spirits in Stone, New York 2001. google scholar
  • COOPER, Vincent Morse, An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols, London 1987. google scholar
  • ÇINAR, Güneş, Heykel ve Mitoloji, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2006. google scholar
  • ÇORUHLU, Yaşar, “At ve Koç Koyun Şekilli Mezar Taşlarının Sembolizmi”, Toplumsal Tarih Dergisi, 94, İstanbul 2001, s. 35-42. google scholar
  • ÇORUHLU, Yaşar, Erken Devir Türk Sanatı, İstanbul 2007. google scholar
  • ÇORUHLU, Yaşar, Kozmolojik, Mitolojik, Astrolojik, Dini ve Edebi Tasavvurlara Göre Türk Sanatında Hayvan Sembolizmi, Konya 2014. google scholar
  • ÇORUHLU, Yaşar, Türk Mitolojisinin Anahatları, İstanbul 2002. google scholar
  • DENİZ, Bekir, “Ağzıkara Han”, Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Kervansarayları, Ankara 2007, s. 321-345. google scholar
  • DİYARBEKİRLİ, Nejat, Hun Sanatı, İstanbul 1972. google scholar
  • DOĞANAY, Aziz “Koca Sinan'ın Üç Büyük Eserinde Rahmet Olukları Çörtenler”, Mimar Sinan ve Su, İstanbul 2017, s. 127-159. google scholar
  • EBERHARD, Wolfram, “Ejderha”, Çin Simgeleri Sözlüğü, İstanbul 2000, s. 104-107 google scholar
  • ERDEM, Mustafa, “Hıristiyanlıktaki Vaftiz Anlayışı Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 34, S. 1, Ankara 1995, s. 133-154. ERDMANN, Kurt, Das Anatolische Karavansaray Des 13. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1961. google scholar
  • ESİN, Emel, “Büke The Cosmic Significance of the Dragon in Early Turkish Iconography)”, Cultura Turcica, V-VI, Ankara 1970, s. 76-108. google scholar
  • ESİN, Emel, “Evren (Selçuklu San’atı Evren Tasvirinin Türk İkonografisinde Menşe’leri)”, Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 1, Ankara 1969, s. 161-182. google scholar
  • GABRIEL, Albert, Kayseri Türk Anıtları, Çev. Ahmed Akif Tütenk, Ankara 1954. google scholar
  • GOMBRİCH, Ernst Hans, Sanatın Öyküsü, İstanbul 1997. google scholar
  • GÜNAY, Hacı Mehmet, “Su”, DİA, C. 37, İstanbul 2009, s. 432-437. google scholar
  • GÜNGÖR, Harun, “Eski Türklerde Din ve Düşünce”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, C. 3, Ankara 2002, s. 261-282. google scholar
  • HİMMETOĞLU, Muhammed Fazıl, “Neolitik Dönem ve Eski Çağ Anadolu’sunda Kutsal Boğa ve Fırtına Tanrısı İlişkisinin Kökeni Hakkında Yeni Değerlendirmeler”, Tarih Okulu Dergisi, S. 23, İzmir 2018, s. 1-21. google scholar
  • HOPKINS, Lionel Charles, “Where the Rainbow Ends (An Introduction to the Dragon Terrestrial and the Dragon Celestial)”, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 3, London 1931, s. 603-612. google scholar
  • İNAN, Abdülkadir, “Türklerde Su Kültü ile İlgili Gelenekler”, 60. Doğum Yılı Münasebetiyle Fuad Köprülü Armağanı, Ankara 2010, s. 249-253. KANAR, Mehmet, Osmanlı Türkçesi Sözlüğü, İstanbul 2009. google scholar
  • KUBAN, Doğan, Selçuklu Çağında Anadolu Sanatı, İstanbul 2008. google scholar
  • KUEHN, Sara, The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art, Leiden 2011. google scholar
  • MÜLAYİM, Selçuk, Değişimin Tanıkları Ortaçağ Türk Sanatında Süsleme ve İkonografi, İstanbul 1999. google scholar
  • OESTİGAARD, Terje, Water, Christianity and the Rise of Capitalism, New York 2013. google scholar
  • OKTAY, Jale Özlem, “Erken Devir Türk Sanatı’nda Grifon Figürünün Sembolizmi”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, S. 183, İstanbul 2009, s. 541-562. google scholar
  • OKUŞLUK ŞENESEN, Refiye, “Türk Halk Kültüründe Bolluk ve Bereketle İlgili İnanç ve Uygulamalarda Eski Türk İzleri” Folklor/Edebiyat, C. 17, S. 66, Lefkoşa 2011, s. 209-228. google scholar
  • ÖGEL, Semra, Anadolu Selçukluları’nın Taş Tezyinatı, Ankara 1987. google scholar
  • ÖNEY, Gönül, “Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Boğa Kabartmaları”, Belleten, C. 34, S. 133, Ankara 1970, s. 83-120. google scholar
  • ÖNEY, Gönül, “Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Ejder Figürleri”, Belleten, C. 31, S. 122, Ankara 1967, s.171-192. google scholar
  • ÖNEY, Gönül, Anadolu Selçuklu Mimari Süslemesi ve El Sanatları, Ankara 1988. google scholar
  • ÖNGE, Yılmaz, “Anadolu'da Ejder Başlı Madeni Çeşme Lüleleri”, Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 1, Ankara 1969, s. 183-185. google scholar
  • ÖNGE, Yılmaz, Türk Mimarisinde Selçuklu ve Osmanlı Dönemlerinde Su Yapıları, Ankara 1997. google scholar
  • PALA, İskender, “Su Kültür Medeniyet”, DİA, C. 37, İstanbul 2009, s. 442-443. google scholar
  • PANOFSKY, Erwin, Gotik Mimarlık ve Skolastik Felsefe, Çev. Engin Akyürek, İstanbul 1991. google scholar
  • PEKER, Ali Uzay, Anadolu Selçukluları’nın Anıtsal Mimarisi Üzerine Kozmoloji Temelli Bir Anlam Araştırması, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 1996. google scholar
  • PESZNECKER, Susan, Gargoyles: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, New York 2007. google scholar
  • RALLS, Karen, Gothic Cathedrals A Guide to The History, Places, Art, and Symbolism, Florida 2015. google scholar
  • RUDENKO, Sergei Ivanovich, Frozen Tombs of Siberia - The Pazyryk Burials of Iron Age Horsemen, Çev. M. W. Thompson, Los Angeles 1970, s. 234. google scholar
  • SMIRKE, Sydney, “Lectures on Architecture at the Royal Academy”, The Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, Vol. 25, London 1862, s. 112. google scholar
  • SÖZEN, Metin; TANYELİ, Uğur, “Çörten”, Sanat Kavram ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, İstanbul 2001, s. 62. google scholar
  • STURGIS, Russell, “Gargoyle”, A Dictionary of Architecture and Building Biographical, Historical, and Descriptive, C. 2, New York 1905, s. 178. google scholar
  • TÜMER, Günay, “Bereket”, DİA, C. 5, İstanbul 1992, s. 487-489. google scholar
  • VARNER, Gary R., Gargoyles, Grotesques & Green Men: Ancient Symbolism in European & American Architecture, New York 2008. google scholar
  • YEGÜL, Fikret, Antik Çağ’da Hamamlar ve Yıkanma, Çev. Emel Erten, İstanbul 2006. google scholar
  • Erişim Tarihi: 20.12.2018. google scholar


Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın



Altın, A. (2019). 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi. Art-Sanat, 0(12), 19-56.


Altın A. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi. Art-Sanat. 2019;0(12):19-56.


Altın, A. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi. Art-Sanat, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 12, p. 19-56, 2019.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Altın, Alper,. 2019. “12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi.” Art-Sanat 0, no. 12: 19-56.

Chicago: Humanities Style

Altın, Alper,. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi.” Art-Sanat 0, no. 12 (Jun. 2024): 19-56.

Harvard: Australian Style

Altın, A 2019, '12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi', Art-Sanat, vol. 0, no. 12, pp. 19-56, viewed 22 Jun. 2024,

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Altın, A. (2019) ‘12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi’, Art-Sanat, 0(12), pp. 19-56. (22 Jun. 2024).


Altın, Alper,. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi.” Art-Sanat, vol. 0, no. 12, 2019, pp. 19-56. [Database Container],


Altın A. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi. Art-Sanat [Internet]. 22 Jun. 2024 [cited 22 Jun. 2024];0(12):19-56. Available from: doi: 10.26650/artsanat.2019.12.0008


Altın, Alper. 12-14. Yüzyıl Türk-İslam Mimarisi ile Gotik Mimarisindeki Figürlü Yağmur Olukları Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma Denemesi”. Art-Sanat 0/12 (Jun. 2024): 19-56.


Son Revizyon23.05.2019


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.