You are here

Home » Content

KENTSEL PLANLAMADA TOPRAK ALTI KENTSEL ARKEOLOJİK KAYNAKLAR, İZMİR TARİHİ KENT MERKEZİ

HANDLING SUB-SOIL URBAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN URBAN PLANNING, ISSUES IN İZMİR HISTORIC CITY CENTRE

Journal Name:

  • Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012
DOI: 
10.4305

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In Turkey, although most of the historic city centres have been continuously occupied since early ages, urban archaeological resources –cultural deposits underneath modern cities- could not be handled into planning process. It will be possible to strike the right balance provided that the archaeological resources are evaluated and considered in each stage of the planning and development process. At that point, urban archaeology is considered as an interdisciplinary field of study that evaluates the cultural stratification in cities and understands the historical background of urban life, while urban planning is a decision-making process on the development of urban areas and planners as a mediator between actors with varying interests. In any case, since the earliest stages of the planning process, as a necessity, urban planners should be well-informed about the urban archaeological resources, but the most of urban planners in Turkey are not still well equipped about archaeological resource management in historic city centre. There are instances when, the incapacities caused even the deliberate destruction of urban archaeological resources, deliberately. Tuna (1999, 222) points out another dimension of dilemma, as urban archaeological resources are mostly seen as obstacles that should be eliminated or ignored for urban development in the Turkish planning experience. In a defined context, evaluation of real archaeological potential in historic city centres is one of the crucial problems in handling of archaeological resources. Especially archaeological resources underneath modern cities could not be identified effectively because of varying incapability in the databases and spatial analysing methods. International interest has increased on the specific topic of the dilemma between archaeology and planning since 1980s. While international suggestions are developed for the conservation and enhancement of the archaeological heritage as a matter of urban and regional planning policies, national legal and administrative frameworks have been developed for the integration of archaeological resources to planning process. These documents (2) underline the lack of a prior understanding between archaeologists and planners, who are seen as natural enemies (Hester, 1989, 233) and enhance the crucial role of an archaeological database in the planning process to prevent archaeological remains from irreversible destructions. Therefore, the study describes a simple framework to handle sub-soil urban archaeological resources into the planning processes by means of urban archaeological databases and spatial analysing of varying sets of data.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Türkiye’deki tarihi kent merkezlerinin birçoğu erken dönemlerden itibaren sürekli olarak yerleşim yeridir. Bu nedenle, tarihi kent merkezleri kentsel arkeoloji çalışma alanı için önemli araştırma potansiyeli taşımaktadır. Kentsel planlama alanı açısından baktığımızda ise, kentsel arkeolojik değerler planlama sürecine etkin bir biçimde dâhil edilebilirse, tarihi kent merkezlerinin çok katmanlı yapısının hem kentlerin tarihsel sürekliliğinin bir göstergesi, hem de kentli bilincini güçlendirebilecek bir öğe olacağı açıktır. Fakat Türkiye’deki güncel politikalar ve stratejiler kentsel arkeolojik değerlerin, özellikle görünmeyen toprak altı değerlerin, planlama ve karar alma süreçlerine katılımına olanak sağlamamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki tarihi kent merkezlerinin planlama sürecine kentsel arkeolojik değerlerin dâhil edilebilmesi için temel bir yöntemsel çerçeve tanımlanmaktadır. Çalışma alanı olarak çok katmanlı bir kent yapısına sahip olan İzmir Tarihi Kent Merkezi seçilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında kentsel arkeolojik değerler için yönetim stratejilerinin tanımlanabilmesi amacıyla eş-değer alanları (ideal arkeolojik potansiyelin tanımlanması için temel birimler) ve kentsel arkeolojik karakter bölgeleri (planlama ve koruma politikalarının tanımlanması için temel birimler) kavramları geliştirilmiştir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_290_29_pp_331-350.pdf
  • 2
331-350
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

ADDYMAN, P. (2003) Urban Archaeology-Where Now, FSA at the Society of
Antiquaries of London, Piccadilly.
AKURGAL, E. (1970) Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey –From
Prehistoric Times until the end of the Roman Empire, Haşet Kitabevi,
İstanbul.
ALPAN, A. (2005) Integration of Urban Archaeological Resources to Everyday
Life in the Historic City Centres Tarragona, Verona and Tarsus,
unpublished Master’s Thesis, METU, Ankara.
ALKIN, B. (1968) Anatolien, Cenevre.
ATAY, Ç. (1998) Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete İzmir Planları, Ajans-Türk
Basımevi, Ankara.
AYKAÇ, P. (2008), Determination of Presentation Principles for Multi-Layered
Historical Towns Based fn Cultural Significance Case Study: Tarsus,
unpublished Master’s Thesis, METU, Ankara.
BEAN, G.E. (1966) Aegean Turkey, London.
BELGE, B. (2005) Urban Archaeological Issues and Resources in İzmir Historic
City Centre: An Exploratory Case Study, unpublished Master’s Thesis,
METU, Ankara.
BERTIN, J. (1981) Graphics and Graphic Information Processing, Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin.
BEYHAN B., BELGE. B., ZORLU F. (2010) Özgür ve Açık Kaynaklı
Masaüstü CBS Yazılımları Üzerine Karsılastırmalı ve Sistemli Bir
Degerlendirme / Free and Open Source Desktop GIS Software
Programs: A Comparative and Systematic Evaluation, Harita Dergisi,
143; 45-61.
BİLGİN, A.G. (1996) Urban Archaeology: as the Bases for the Studies on the
Future of the Town Case Study: Bergama, unpublished Master’s Thesis,
METU, Ankara.
BİLGİN (ALTINÖZ), A. 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, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, METU, Ankara.
CADOUX, C.J. (1938) Ancient Smyrna; A History of the City from the Earliest
Times to 324 A.D., Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
CANPOLAT, E. (1953) İzmir: Kuruluşundan Bugüne Kadar, İstanbul.
CoE / the Council of Europe (1989) Recommendation on the Protection and
Enhancement of the Archaeological Heritage in Context of Town and
Country Planning Operations.
CoE / the Council of Europe (2000) Archaeology and the Urban Project,
a European Code of Good Practice, Cultural Heritage Committee,
Strasbourg.
COHEN, N. (2001) Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation, McGraw-
Hill.
ÇIRAK (ALTINÖRS), A. (2010) Bir Planlama Stratejisi Olarak Arkeolojik
Envanterleme ve Kentsel Arkeolojik Değer Yönetimi: İzmir Tarihi Kent
Merkezi, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
DELAUNAY, C. (1984) Collaboration between Planners and Archaeologists,
Archaeology and Planning, the Colloquy organized jointly by the
Council of Europe and the Region of Tuscany, Florence.
EC / European Commission (2006) Appear Method, a Practical Guide for The
Management of Enhancement Projects on Urban Archaeological Sites,
Research Report 30/4.
FOUSEKI K., SANDES, C. (2009) Private Preservation versus Public
Presentation: The Conservation for Display of In Situ Fragmentary
Archaeological Remains in London and Athens, Papers from the Institute
of Archaeology, 19; 37–54.
GARMY, P. (1995) Urban Archaeology in France, Committee on Cultural
Heritage, European Plan for Archaeology, Group of Specialist on
Urban Archaeology, CE, Strasbourg.
HESTER, A. D. (1989) Public Archaeology Forum, Journal of Field
Archaeology, 16(2) 233-40.
ICOMOS (1990) Charter for the Protection and Management of the
Archaeological Heritage, Valetta, Malta.
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi (2003) Küllerinden Doğan Şehir, Kültür
Yayınları, İzmir.
KILIÇ, M., GÜLBAY, O. (2010), The Değirmentepe Temple at Smyrna, TÜBAAR
(Turkish Academy of Science, Journal of Archaeology), 13; 113-
26.
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; 49-105.
MÜLLER, W.W. (1963) Die Stadtbefestigungen von Izmir, Sığacık und
Çandarlı, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Ableilung, Istanbuler
Mitteilunge, İstanbul.
NAUMANN, R., KANTAR, S. (1950) Die Agora Von Smyrna, Forschungen
17, İstanbul.
ÖZKUT, D. (1997) A Guideline for Conservation of Historical Commercial Centre
“Punta” in İzmir, unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Ankara.
PINAR, İ. (2001) Hacılar, Seyyahlar, Misyonerler ve İzmir, Yabancıların Gözüyle
Osmanlı Döneminde İzmir 1608-1918, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi
Kültür Yayınları, İzmir.
PPG16 / Planning Policy Guidance 16 (1990) Planning and Archaeology,
Secretary of State for the Environment.
PPS 5 / Planning Policy Statement-5 (2010), Planning for Historic
Environment, Communities and Local Government, TSO.
POCOCKE, R. (1972) Voyage de Richard Pococke, Chapter V, Paris.
SOMMELLA, P. (1984), Methodology of Archaeological Research in Urban
Areas, Archaeology and Planning, the Colloquy organized jointly by the
Council of Europe and the Region of Tuscany, Florence.
TANER, T., ECEMİŞ, S., AYDOĞAN, M. (2002) Kemeraltı Koruma Amaçlı
İmar Planı Revizyonu Raporu, Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of
Architecture, Department of City and Regional İzmir.
TUNA, N. (1999) Turkey, Report on the Situation of Urban Archaeology in
Europe, the Council of Europe Publishing; 217-28.
TUNA, N. (2003) İstanbul Suriçi’nde Kentsel Arkeolojik Kültür Mirası, İstanbul
Dergisi, Tarih Vakfı, 46; 88-93.
WHEATLEY, D., GILLINGS, M. (2002) Spatial Technology and Archaeology,
the Archaeological Applications of GIS, Taylor & Frances, London.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com