Journal Name:
- Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi
Author Name |
---|
Abstract (2. Language):
General remarks that can be made, resting on the comparisons of the main
typological groups suggested by scholars such as Kiel, Klinghardt, Glück
and Eyice are:
a. Baths in the Greek territory do not form original prototypes, since their
architectural characteristics match the rhythmological and structural
features found in all the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman architects based their
plans on a code of constructional techniques and rules of proportion.
Greece at that time, was a province of the Empire and if we recognize this
fact, we shall understand the reason of this homogeneity, as the process of
a building’s construction there did not differ from the one in the Asiatic
region.
THE OTTOMANHAMAMS IN GREECE METU JFA 2004/1-2 93
Figure 11. Gazi Mihal Hamam, Edirne, ýlýklýk
dome. Kuban (1976, Fig. 11).
Figure 12. Apollonia Hamam, Lake Volvi,
Langadas, plan (drawing: E. Hadjitryfonos)
Hadjitrifonos (1988, 144). b. The ground floor of the buildings was adopted by a certain model. The
state architect plainly concerned himself with establishing the main
structures of buildings under his supervision, after which they were left in
the hands of master craftsmen, occasionally overseen by him. It was
traditional materials and building techniques which decided the eventual
structure of the building, beyond the architect’s very basic plan. The
officially appointed architects that supervised the construction and guided
the workers, followed the formal design (Moutsopoulos 1967, 51).
c. Craftsmen bore a common vocabulary, which was used for all aspects of
buildings. This is also supported by the following facts that, as builders’
corporations, the esnaf (συντεχνίες) (Goodwin 1971, 22), were moving
from one place to the other. They applied their construction techniques, in
accordance to the site, regional materials and the financial aid of each
donator.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF):
- 1-2
81-110