Continuity of Architectural Traditions in the Megaroid Buildings of Rural Anatolia: the Case of Highlands of Phrygia

Home , Amorium, Dorylaeum, Hacilar, Kerkenes, Megaron, Paphlagonia

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • 227-247 Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia

Alev ERARSLAN [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Turkey

Received: May 2015 Final Acceptance: October 2015

Abstract Rural architecture has grown over time, exhibiting continuities as well as ad- aptations to the diferent social and economic conditions of each period. Conti- nuity in rural architecture is related to time, tradition and materiality, involving structural, typological, functional and social issues that are subject to multiple interpretations. Tis feldwork was conducted in an area encompassing the villages of the districts of today’s Eskişehir Seyitgazi and Afyon İhsaniye districts, the part of the landscape known as the Highlands of Phrygia. Te purpose of the feldwork was to explore the traces of the tradition of “megaron type” buildings in the villages of this part of the Phrygian Valley with an eye to pointing out the “architectural continuity” that can be identifed in the rural architecture of the region. Te methodology employed was to document the structures found in the villages using architectural measuring techniques and photography. Te buildings were examined in terms of plan type, spatial organization, construction technique, materials and records evidencing the age of the structure. Te study will attempt to produce evidence of our postulation of architectural continuity in the historical megara of the region in an efort to shed some light on the region’s rural architecture. Te study results revealed megaroid structures that bear similarity to the plan archetypes, construction systems and building materials of historical megarons in the region of the Phrygian Highlands. Tese structures were classifed in a typology that evidenced the existence of an architectural continuity of megaroid building tradition, which this study seeks to present.

Keywords Megaron, Megariod buildings, Architectural continuity, Rural architecture. 228

1. Introduction Rural architecture is a type of architecture that is based on local needs and construction materials, and it refects local traditions at the same time. Te general characteristics of rural architecture are traditionality, functionality, adaptation to environmental conditions and local materials. Rural houses are important elements of heritage that have historical and cultural continuity. Tey are less liable to be afected by rapid cultural changes and has grown over time, exhibiting continuities as well as adap- tations to the diferent social and economic conditions of each period. Some part of Turkish communities preserved their nomadic lifestyle until the end of the 19th century when they began to abandon their yörük tents to build permanent houses during their transition from a nomadic existence into a settled lifestyle. It is believed that it was in this period that they must have adopted the housing plans used by the local populations in the places in which they settled. Figure 1. Eskişehir Seyitgazi. Researched villages (drawn by Uğur Süleymanoğlu). 2. Te aim and the methodology of the research Te process of exploring Anatolia’s rural settlements is still in its beginning stages. Tere is still controversy over which parameters were infuential in the choice of the house plans, materials and building systems used in the transition of the Turks into permanent settlements. Te general belief is that the nomads adapted to the housing culture of indigenous societies in that period. It is for this reason that research on Anatolian rural architecture is of great importance. Tis f eldwork was conducted in the area encompassing all villages of Figure 2. Afyon Ihsaniye. Researched villages (drawn by Uğur the districts of Eskişehir Seyitgazi and Süleymanoğlu). Afyon İhsaniye, referred to in history as the “Highlands of Phrygia” (Figures. of whether there is in fact cultural and 1, 2). Te main goal of this research is architectural continuity in Anatolian to reveal the similarities between the rural architecture. megaroid structures in the Highlands To reach our goals, we investigated of Phrygia and the plan, spatial organi- all of the villages in the region. All the zation, building systems and materials houses were examined in terms of the used in the historical megara, and to plan type, spatial organization, materi- uncover any architectural continuity als, construction systems and records as is believed to exist in the area. Tis evidencing the age of the buildings. will shed some light on the question Te samples chosen were documented

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 229 using architectural measuring meth- Other early examples can be seen in ods and photography. In addition, in- Sesklo and Dhimini in Eastern Tessa- terviews were held with the members ly in the late Neolithic (Bintlif, 2012). of the households living in the houses Sesklo has in fact been named the ear- and with village elders to learn about liest “megaroid-style building” in the the age of the buildings, the history of middle of the acropolis. Te structure the villages, the daily lifestyle and the is made up of a porch, a main chamber use of space. and a back room. In the same way, the acropolis at Dhimini boasts a megaron 3. Te historical background of the larger than others that stands in the megaron middle of the circular walls. Tese are Megaron (plural megara) refers to centrally-located structures and pro- an elongated rectangular building with tected by fortifcation walls. Tey have an entrance on one of the short sides, been interpreted as the rulers’s resi- provided with a porch. In Homer, the dences or the temples (Bintlif, 2012). megaron refers to the great halls of the Poliochni and Termi had row-hous- Mycenean palaces (Knox, 1973). Ho- es of megaroid character during EBI. mer regards the function of the mega- Tese long and narrow buildings are ron as “the hall of the men”. Heredotus composed of a closed antechamber and holds it equal to the sacred room of of a main chamber. Tese structures the adyton of the temple dedicated to have been placed on the street per- Helen (Işık, 1998). According to Deroy, pendicularly. Tey were constructed “megaron” is a word in Sanskrit that as row houses with common side walls means “a room with a hearth” (Deroy, (Warner, 1994). Mellink presumes that 1948). these long houses are the ancestors of Dörpfeld, Schliemann and Blegen the megaron (Mellink, 1986). were the frst to apply the term “mega- Lerna IV (Early Helladic II) is a ron” to prehistoric remains, in the pal- small one-room megaron of classical ace at Tiryns in 1885 and later for the form facing east onto a large courtyard large buildings of Troy II (Dörpfeld, (Warner, 1994). In the Middle and Late 1902); Schliemann, 1885). Tey used Helladic, the megaron plan continued the term “megaron” in the Homeric to develop and a number of new types sense of a large hall or a main hall in a emerged, particularly in houses. In the palace (Ivanova, 2013). In his 1953 ex- Peloponesus, the Mycenaean palaces cavation report, Blegen described the of ruler forts of Late Helladic III, My- megaron as “a room of great size, the cenae, Tiryns and Pylos exhibit struc- principal apartment of the palace”. It is tures of the megaron type. Te most referred to as a megaron of the classic well-known is Nestor’s palace at Pylos, mainland type, consisting of a great of which we hear much in Homer’s hall, a vestibule, and a two-columned Odyssey. It consists of a hall, a forehall, portico fronting a court, in most re- and a porch with two columns in antis spects similar to corresponding suites to support the roof. Te main hall con- at Mycenae and Tiryns (Blegen, 1953). tains a large circular hearth at center, Te term has subsequently been used surrounded by four columns (Blegen, to refer to other buildings in Greece Rawson, 1966). and elsewhere that contain a long hall Looking at Anatolian examples of fronted by a porch, as well as freestand- megaron-type, Hacilar IIA from the ing buildings with this alignment of Early Chalcolithic presents buildings rooms (Warner, 1994). of megaroid character. Tese contig- Tere are diferent views about the uous buildings of one or two stories roots of the megaron. Te simplest have features similar to megaron type type, namely an isolated rectangle, is because they display a forecourt of attested for Trace, Macedonia and a sort. Te houses are arranged with Tessaly in Neolithic (Müller, 1944). their backs to the defensive wall. Each Buildings of this type consist of a sin- consists of a main room with a hearth gle room without porch or anteroom. set in the middle of the foor and an an- Tey have pitched roofs, fat roof or the teroom (Mellart, 1970). barrel roof. Another precurser of the mega-

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 230 ron-like structure in Anatolia can be the main room. Te roofng sytem is seen in Yümüktepe XVI. Here stand a the gabled roof. series of houses of megaroid charac- In all of the occupation levels dat- ter adjoining the city walls, all with a ed to the EB at Beycesultan, megaroid closed porch and a main room in back houses and shrines are quite prevalent. (Garstang, 1953). Tey have main rooms with hearths, At the start of 4000 BC in the Late sometimes with small rooms in the Chalcolithic, in Beycesultan XXIV, back and with a porch. Tis continued appeared a structure that may be said to be a feature of megaron-type build- to be a precursor to the megaron type ings right up to the end of the LB at site in Anatolia. Here, at the west end of a (Lloyd, Mellaart, 1962). building, projecting walls created an Te Antalya Bademağacı, Eskişe- open porch; from this, one entered hir Küllüoba, Demircihöyük and through a doorway with a raised step Keçiçayırı settlements of the EB had into the main chamber, which had a two-roomed structures in the megaron circular hearth in the center (Lloyd, style. Tey contained a central open Mellaart, 1962). area around which there were exam- An increase in megaron-type build- ples on a radial plan adjoining the city ings appeared in Anatolia by the EB. walls. In Bademağacı, the EBA II town Troia I consisted of parallel rows of were megaron-like houses with open- long buildings of megaroid character. porched and with rear rooms (Duru, House 102 has one room and a porch 2003; Korfmann, 1983). Küllüoba in and without rear antae. It had a hearth Early Bronze II consists of an upper at the center (Blegen, 1937, Ivanova, city, at the center of which there are 2013). At Troia II, large houses of the two megara complexes that have pub- megaron-type have been brought to lic functions. Surrounding these struc- light on the citadel. Megaron IIA with tures on three sides are long houses a central hearth probably served as an and two- or three-roomed houses in assembly room or an audience-hall, megaroid shape, their rear rooms abut- and maybe in its last phase (Ilh), it was ting against the fortifcation wall (Efe, a place of cultic activity (Mellart, 1959). Ay-Efe, 2001; Efe et al. 2011). Te long-room units arranged in Te megaron-type in Marmara how- rows were very common in the western ever can be seen at the end of the EB. part of Anatolia in the EB. Te coastal Te acropolis of Kanlıgeçit has three communities along the Anatolian litto- adjacent large megara arranged linear- ral at Beşiktepe, Bakla Tepe and Liman ly. Tese buildings are observed to be Tepe VI, and on the eastern Aegean of the type that has a single main room islands at Yeni Bademli, built mainly with an open porch in front with rear long-room dwellings arranged in a row antae (Özdoğan, 2002). (Ivanova, 2013). Some of these long Phrygian architecture represents houses may be defned as of mega- the period in which the megaron plan roid-style because of their side wall ex- prevails as the most characteristic tensions (Erkanal, 1996). plan type. Te buildings in the citadel Te most numerous examples of the in Gordion are freestanding and each megaron plan were uncovered in an EB consisted of a large hall with central village at Karataş-Semayük. Te basic hearth and a porch and anteroom, characteristics of these freestanding and with a fat or double pitched roof rectangular structures are two struc- (Young, 1960). tural long walls with cross-walls in- Te megaron-type can also be estab- serted to form a main room and a front lished in central Anatolia. In the period porch which are entered axially on the of Phrygian expansion to the east, the short side. Te long walls end in antae Iron Age of Büyükkale, small megaron at the front; the rear cross-wall is of- houses are typically of Phrygian con- ten set back from the ends of the long struction and plan. Te most frequent walls, which thus project as rear antae type displayed an open entrance hall/ (Warner, 1979, 1994). Each is entered porch in antis. Tere are also other through a door centrally located in the variations with semi- or completely front cross wall between the porch and closed porches (Neve, 1996).

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 231

At Kültepe in the EBIII, a megaron-shaped architectural complex is a temple. In the middle of a large room lies a round hearth, surrounded by four posts. Smaller rooms are grouped around this central hall (Özgüç, 1963). A megaron-shaped architectural complex was also found on Stratum IIa in Kaman Kalehöyük. Te structure was surrounded by corridors (Omura, 1999). At Kerkenes Dağ, some structures that can be identifed as megaron have been uncovered. Tey are freestanding buildings that have one main room with a central hearth and an open porch (Summers et al., 2004). Tey have double-pitched roofs and served some special public function or the residences for the ruling elite (Sum- Figure 3. Te Highlands Phrygia (https:// mers et al., 2004). www.academia.edu/1670748/Highlands_ Tell Tayi’nat Building XVI was a long of_Phrygia-Map). room divided into a portico, a main afer the Phrygians. Ancient Phrygia hall and a shrine. It is a temple complex was a neighbor to Cappadocia to the and its plan is in antis style (Harrison, east and later to Galatia, the regions of Osbourne, 2012). Lykaonia, Pisidia Kabalis, Milyas Kib- Besides these examples, some re- yratis in the south, and Mysia, Lydia, searchers assert that there are build- Karia to the west and the regions of ings of the megaroid character in the Bithynia and Paphlagonia to the north Near East as well. Some have named (Sevin, 2007). Te capital Gordion, the long-axis corridor house/pier- Pessinous, Mideon, Dorylaeum, Lao- house type of house found to be wide- dikeia and Kolossai may be mentioned spread in the southern Levant in Mid- as the most important cities of ancient dle PPNB “megaron” (Wright, 1985; Phrygia (Sevin, 2007). Garstang, Garstang, 1940). A central Te oldest name for Afyon was hearth is a common feature of the plan. Akronio. In the period of the Hittite Wright states that the PPNB temple Empire, Afyon gained importance be- at Jericho E is a megaron since the fank cause of the campaigns of Murshilish II walls project as antae (Wright, 1985). against the kingdom of Arzava. It was Wright also claims that the Langbau afer the fall of the Hittite Empire and type of temples in the Near East in the following the ensuing Dark Ages that LB and Iron Ages are of the megaron the Phyrgians entered the scene. Te style (Wright, 1985; Davey, 1980). Tey region was known as Phyrgia thereaf- have a single long room and a shallow ter up until the end of the Byzantine entrance porch designed in antis (Hun- Era (Ilaslı, 2004). dley, 2013). As a result of the Cimmerian at- tacks, dominion over Central Anatolia 4. A history of the settlement of the passed from the Phyrgians to the Lyd- region ians (Akurgal, 2000). From the middle Te Highlands Phrygia cover the of the sixth century BC, the Persians whole of the districts of Afyonkar- captured sovereignty over the Afyon ahisar and the districts of Ihsaniye, region. From 30 BC onward, Anato- Işcehisar and Bayat as well as a part lia was under the leadership of Rome. of Bolvadin and Seyitgazi and Han in During the Roman Era, new towns and Eskişehir, and a part of central Küta- cities were established in the region. hya and Tavşanlı (Aşılıoğlu, Memlük, Te city of Amorium gained impor- 2010; Haspels, 1971; Kortanoğlu, 2011) tance in the Byzantine Era and Phyrgia (Figure 3). Te region has been named was divided in two, one part becoming

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 232 annexed to Galatia, the other remain- Te region’s megaroid buildings ing as Phrygia Salutaris. have a main room and a front porch, During 1275-1343, Sahipataoğul- comprised thus of two structural ar- ları was established in Afyonkarahisar chetypes. Tey constitute a longitudi- (Karazeybek, 2004). Yıldırım Beyazıt nal mass. Te buildings vary in size. annexed the region to the Ottoman Te main rooms are almost square or lands in 1390. Afer WWI, Afyon too in the form of a longitudinal rectan- was invaded by the Greeks. Te city gle and form the core of the building. was liberated on August 27, 1922 in the Tey are used for sleeping, eating and Great Ofensive. for most domestic activities. Te main Seyitgazi is a small district of Es- room sizes vary. Tey are usually of kişehir, 4 km. to its south. Te oldest the size 3x3 m. None of the examples settlements in the area dates back to exhibit a central hearth. Te hearth the EB (Altınsapan, 1999). Te region would occupy the wall across from the was conquered by the Hittites in the door. Tere are niches in the walls of ffeenth century BC and the Phyrgians the main room. Te buildings can be entered the area around 1200 BC, es- directly accessed from the main room. tablishing a strong kingdom in the en- In none of the examples is the door of virons of Eskişehir. In the eighth cen- the main room on the central axis, but tury BC however, with pressures from either to the right or the lef. the Lydians, and because of the steady Te term “porch” is used to refer to loss of strength as a result of the the the roofed area between the extensions Assyrian invasions, the Phrygian king- of the long walls of the main room. Te dom was destroyed by the Cimmeri- two long walls of the main room ex- ans, remaining under Lydian rule until tended beyond the short front and con- the Persian invasion in 546 BC. In the stituted a porch at the front. Te roof Hellenistic Era, Rome began to reign in extended over the porch and provided Anatolia and Seyitgazi, named “Naco- additional working space. Te porches lea”, became an important guard post are shallow in general. On the average, of Rome (Aşılıoğlu, Memlük, 2010). the depth of the porches is 1 m. In Afer 395 AD, many Byzantine cities only a few examples, the porches are were established in the region. deep. Te people of the region refer to In the period of the Seljuks, Nacolea the ground level porch as the “ev önü” was conquered by the Danişments and (front of the house), and to the porch the Seljuk tribes. Seyitgazi was annexed on top of the barns as the “hayat”. In to Ottoman lands during the reign of no example are the porches paved with Murat I. Seyitgazi participated in the a special foor covering. None of the War of Liberation with a special bat- houses had a rear anta/rear porch. talion; the troops were partially inca- While most structures are one-sto- pacitated in the Greek invasion and on ried, some buildings rise above a barn. 1922, with the coming of the Turkish Examples rising above a barn are few armies, it became a part of the Turkish in the area. Some of the single-storied Republic (Altınsapan, 1999). structures are built on ground level while some have been built on a stone 5. Plan typologies and general char- basement. In this case, the structure acteristics of the structures in the re- has a raised porch with stairs leading gion to a porch. Te stairs can be at the In this work, the term “megaron” center of the house or on one side of has been used to signify structures the porch. Te stairways open to the with 2 long walls ending in antae at the porch. Te people in the region call front, a front porch which is entered the houses on ground level as “Yer Ev” axially on the short side, and a rectan- (Ground House). gular single main room. However, to Te region has six types of megaroid be precise, these structures have also structure. Tis typology was attained been described as megaroid build- from a total of 33 buildings among ings, megaroid-style buildings, mega- the houses scanned for the research roid-shaped buildings, megaron-like throughout the region (Figure 4, 5). buildings and the like. Some of them are in ruins. Of those

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 233

Figure 4. Graph showing the dispersion of the plan types according to villages in Eskişehir Seyitgazi.

Figure 5. Graph showing the dispersion of theplan types according to villages in Afyon Ihsaniye.

surviving, some have either been aban- doned or converted into storage space. Rebuilding has occurred in some houses. Te full age range of the houses is not known exactly. However, the average age of all of the examples, according to the testimony of the villagers, is 120-140 years. 1. Type with 2 antae: Tis is the most widespread plan in the region (Figures Figure 6. Plan type 1 (Drawn by Salih 4, 5). Tis type consists of a main room Ceylan). and a porch at the front (Figures 6-8). Te side walls of the main room extend to form a porch at the front. Tey are antae walls. Te antae form a solid wall. A building is built on a stone basement. In this case, the structure has a raised porch with stairs leading to a porch (Figures 6: B, 8). In general, these types of structures are freestanding on a road. 2. Type in antis: Tis is the second widespread plan (Figures 4, 5). In this Figure 7. Te megaroid building built i n type, the structures are single-roomed type 1A. with an open porch and one, two or

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 234

Figure 12. Te megaroid building built in type 2B.

Figure 8. Te megaroid building built in type 1B.

Figure 13. Te megaroid building built i n type 2C.

Figure 9. Plan type 2 (Drawn by Salih Ceylan).

Figure 10. Te megaroid building built in type 2A.

Figure 14. Plan type 3 (Drawn by Salih Ceylan).

Figure 11. Inside of the same house. Te hearth. three wooden posts placed between antae (Figure 9). In this form, the structures appear to be monostyle in antis, distyle in antis and tristyle in antis (Figures. 9-13). Te mono- Figure 15. Te megaroid building built in style in antis is the simplest form. Te type 3A. porches are very shallow and there are

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 235

Figure 16. Te megaroid building built in type 3B.

Figure 21. Plan type 4 (Drawn by Salih Ceylan).

Figure 17. Te megaroid building built in type 3C.

Figure 22. Te megaroid building built in type 4A.

Figure 18. Te megaroid building built in type 3D.

Figure 23. Te megaroid building built in type 4B. no rear antae. In only one example of these buildings, which are generally on ground level, is the structure accessed with stairs consisting of a few steps Figure 19. Te megaroid building built in (Figure 9: C, 13). While the structures type 3E. are generally freestanding on a road, one of the buildings is attached parallel to the courtyard wall (Figure 10). 3. Type with a single anta: Tis is the third plan type in the region (Figures 4, 5). In this type, there is a single anta wall of the building. One of the antae forms the solid long side of the main room and one or more wooden post/ columns are found at the other end (Figure 14). Generally this type ap- Figure 20. Te megaroid building built in pears as a single wooden post/column type 3F. Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 236

posts only along the front side. Tis type of building does not possess antae. Te prostyle porch has been used in the region in the distyle and tristyle prostyle (Figure 21). In the distyle prostyle, a wooden post/column is found at each end of the porch in front of the structure (Figures 21: A-B, 22-23). In the tristyle prostyle, the structure has 3 wooden posts/columns in front (Fig- Figure 24. Te megaroid building built i n ures 21: C-D, 24-26). In general, the type 4C. prostyle type has been implemented in examples built on a high sub-basement or barn and these structures are accessed by stairs. Te structures are freestanding on a road. 5. Closed porch type: Tis type of plan, which is only encountered in a single example in the region, compris- es a main room with a double entrance and a closed porch/anteroom in front (Figures 4, 27: A, 28). It is without rear Figure 25. Inside of the same house. Te antae. Te building is freestanding on hearth. a road. 6. Type with a rear room: In this plan, which is only uncovered in a single example, the main room is subdivided by a wall to create a back room (Figure 4). A partition wall divides the interior into two rooms. Tus, a small rear room is formed in back of the main room of the structure (Figures 27: B, 29), the long main room being fanked by the smaller room at the back. Tere Figure 26. Te megaroid building built i n is a deep porch with a single anta in type 4D. front of the structure. Te building is attached parallel to the courtyard wall. on the other end of a solid long side While the courtyard wall forms the wall which is one of the antae walls single anta of the structure, in the oth- (Figures 14: A-D, 15-18). Sometimes er direction, 3 wooden posts stand in 2 or 4 wooden posts may be found in front of the porch (Figure 29). front of the porch (Figures 14: E-F, 19- Tese megaroid-style buildings are 20). In applications with a single post/ characterized in three locations; free- column, sometimes a wooden door standing on a road or on a courtyard, opened to the courtyard is built on the adjacent or abutting another structure post/column side of the porch (Fig- and attached to parallel to the court- ures 14: B-C, 16-17). Both freestanding yard wall. and attached structures parallel to the In the frst type of location, the courtyard wall structures can be seen structures are freestanding and at the location. In the structure on the self-contained structures on a road or location attached parallel to the court- on a courtyard. Tey are single unit yard wall, the courtyard wall forms the structures. Teir porticos have been single anta (Figure 18). built to face the south. Teir orienta- 4. Prostyle type: Tis is the other tion is looking out toward open spaces type in the region (Figures 4, 5). Pro- and streets (Figures 8, 17, 23, 24, 26). style is a term defning freestanding In the second type of location, the columns across the front of the build- structures are buildings where a few ing and refers to a building having families live together and which also

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 237 have a barn, a haylof and stand in a Te side walls of the buildings too have courtyard along with other houses. windows but some structures remain Tese buildings are either freestand- windowless. Te rear façades of the ing inside the courtyard, looking out buildings however are without win- toward the road, or they have been dows. built attached to parallel to the court- All of the megaroid structures in yard wall. In this case, one wall of the the region have a roof that is one of 3 house is also the wall of the courtyard types—fat roof, low-pitched roof or (Figures 10, 18, 29). In other words, the gabled—but all of the types are wood- courtyard wall forms one of the antae en. In all the types of roof, the roof of the building. extends over the porch. In the case of In the third type of location, the the fat roof, some of these are some- structure is leaning on another struc- times tiled with bricks but sometimes ture at the back. Te building usually covered with earth. Te low-pitched leans on another structure (an annex), roof and the gabled roof however are most likely a barn or haylof. Only tiled with brick. Because the rooms in very few examples, this annex is a are small, no internal wooden posts or house (Figure 17). Te annex is not en- a central post carrying the roof in the tered from the main building. It is sep- main room have been encountered. arately roofed. Tere is only one exam- Two types of wall technique have ple of an annex added to the long side been used on the walls of the struc- of the building, but the construction of tures- stone wall construction and this indicates that the annex was built timber-reinforced stone construction. later (Figure 20). In the timber-frame supported stone Te organization of the façades of wall, walls were supported by a wood- the buildings is made up of a door and en framework of horizontal, transverse one adjacent window opening out into and vertial timbers. While rubble stone the main room. With this arrange- was generally used as material for the ment, the buildings have a two-ele- walls, it can also be seen that both rub- ment structure on their façades. Only ble stone and fnely cut stones were in some examples were the windows used together. In some buildings, mud- on the façades closed of aferwards. brick was used along with the stone. In addition to this mixed material, mixed wall construction can also be observed. In very few examples, timber-frame stone and mud-brick construction can be seen together in a mixed wall construction system. In one example, bağ- dadi (lath and plaster) was used on one anta wall of the structure (Figure 7). Sometimes the walls were covered with clay and straw plaster. None of the houses have toilets. All of the toilets are outside. In one cor- ner of the main room stands a wooden Figure 27. Plan type 5 and 6 (Drawn by platform that serves as a bath. Salih Ceylan).

Figure 28. Te megaroid building built in Figure 29. Te megaroid building built in type 5. type 6. Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 238

6. Comparison of the historical meg- and tombs (Kjelden, Zahle, 1975). In ara the book he wrote in 1853, “Ein Aus- When the megaroid buildings in the fug nach Kleinasien und Entdeckungen region are compared with historical in Lycien”, Ch. Fellows drew pictures of megarons of ancient Anatolia and Near the Turkish houses and storehouses he East, it can be noticed that the plan saw in the Xanthos plains and he called types, construction systems, building attention to the resemblance between materials and roofng sytems display these houses and the wooden house some common elements. architecture of ancient Lycia and the Te frst plan type in the region is Lycian rock tombs (Figure 30) (Işık, the “type with 2 antae”. Tis type con- Yılmaz, 1996). Tese house tombs imi- sists of an almost square or longitu- tated the appearance of wooden Lycian dinally rectangular main room and a houses, with their stone reproduc- porch at the front (Figure 6). Tere are tions of wooden architectural features no rear antae. Similar types of this plan (Metzger , Coupel, 1963). Tese tombs can be seen in ancient Anatolia in Troia have the same shape, all small temples I (House 102), Troia II, Karataş-Se- with pediments supported by columns. mayük, Bademağacı, Büyükkale, Bey- Teir façades have a pediment and col- cesultan X-IX, Keçiçayırı, Gözlükule umns between the projecting side walls Tarsus and Kerkenes. All have mega- (antae). Tey generally have façades roid structures that are single-roomed, with an arrangement of 1, 2, 3 or 4 col- with an open porch and without rear umns between antae (in antis). Besides antae. Te side walls of the main room having gabled roofs, there are also ex- extend to form a porch at the front amples of fat roofs. and they constitute the antae walls. So, Te Phrygian rock-cut façades pro- the antae walls of the buildings are the vide a clue about the megaron façade solid side walls of the main room. In arrangements at Gordion. Some of general, these types of buildings are them consist of a façade, varying in freestanding. Some of the buildings are size, generally depicting the front of a attached to each other because of the house. Te most prominent feature of “Anatolian settlement siedlungschema” the Phrygian rock-cut façades is a focal (Blegen, 1937; Neve, 1996; Summers niche with a surrounding façade dec- et al., 2004; Efe et al, 2011; Lloyd, Mel- orated with geometrical motifs. Tey laart, 1962; Warner, 1979; Naumann, are thought to have imitated the front 1998; Duru, 2003). of a building of public importance. Another plan in the region is the Te appearance of Phrygian houses “type in antis”. In this type, one, two may be gauged from the carved rocks or three wooden posts are placed be- representing the façades of buildings, tween antae (Figure 9). Te porch is probably temples, illustrated in stone very shallow and there are no rear an- in Arslankaya, Bahşayiş, Demirkale tae. Tese structures display a porch or Midas City (Barnett, 1967). Ber- arrangment of monostyle, distyle and ndt-Ersöz assert that the rock-cut tristyle in antis type. Tis type porch façades are not true copies of Phrygian arragement resembles the façades of houses, but may be imitations (Ber- Phrygian rock-cut shrines and Phry- ndt-Ersöz, 1998; 2006). gian, Lycian, Hellenistic and Roman Te porch in antis is also reminis- periods rock-cut tombs (Kortanoğ- lu, 2011). It was Ch. Fellows and later Benndorf and Niemann who asserted that these tombs might have been infuenced by wooden houses in ancient Lycia (Işık, Yılmaz, 1996). Te façades of the tombs resembled house façades because the tombs were considered the residences of the dead (Ambrossini, 2011). Tus houses began to be seen Figure 30. 19th century houses and as the precursers of the Lycian rock storehouses in the plain of Xanthos from Ch. tombs and Phrygian rock-cut shrines Fellows (Işık, Yılmaz 1996: 178).

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 239 cent of Greek temples. Greek temples a feature that is diferent from the pro- generally made use of the “distyle in an- style types in our feld of study. tis” plan. Te houses in the region with Te other plan in the region is the the in antis plan also resembled the closed porch type. Tis plan is only columned prostas house of the classi- encountered in a single example. Te cal Greek period. Here, in front of the building is without rear antae. It con- oikos was a columned porch (prostas) sists of a main room with a double en- which opened out onto the courtyard. trance and a closed porch/anteroom in House plans with prostas were derived front (Figure 27: A). Te closed porch from megaron. Other similar exam- is very widely used in the megaron style ples of porch in antis can be seen in of buildings in Anatolia. Examples of Ain Dara and Tell Tayinat Building II . a single-entrance main room and a Tese temples are buildings where the closed porch/anteroom can be seen lateral walls of the main hall of worship in Gordion, Küllüoba, Demircihöyük, are continued on the façade with a ves- Mersin, Hacılar IIA and Büyükkale. tibule/porch on either side. Both have Te main room with a double entrance two columns between antae. is seen in Anatolia at Karataş-Se- Another plan encountered in the mayük V-VI and in Bademağacı. At region is the “prostyle type”. Tis type Bademağacı, in the EBII settlement, does not possess antae. Tere is a there are megaron-style buildings with wooden columned porch in front of a main room having double entrances the main room. Tis type has been with open porches (Figure 32: C, D). used in the region in distyle and tristyle Tere is also a building with a double prostyle (Figure 21). In distyle prostyle entrance and a closed porch/anteroom porch, a wooden post/column is found in front (Figure 32: E). At Semayük at each end of the porch in front of the Karataş V-VI, although the main room building. Te distyle prostyle is remi- in the megaron structures have a dou- niscent of the rock-cut tombs façade ble entrance, these have open porches of the Hellenistic and Roman in High- (Figure 32: F) (Warner, 1979). Tese lands of Phrygia (Kortanoğlu, 2011). buildings have no rear antae, but a rear Te façade of Ayazini and Yapıldak, room. there is a distyle prostyle porch arr- Another type of megaroid structure agement (Figure 31). Here, a column is in the region is the plan type that has placed in each end of the porch. a rear room. In this plan, the main Te prostyle porch is also remi- room is subdivided by a wall to create a niscent of prostyle Greek temples. A back room. Tus, a small rear room is Greek prostyle temple has a colonnad- formed in back of the main room (Fig- ed porch in front of the cella. Tere are ure 27: B). In front of the main room is however generally 4 columned porch- an open porch. At Bademağacı, House es in front of the cella. Besides in the 30 is a building with a rear room (Fig- Greek temples, the prostyle porch is ure 32: G). At Karataş-Semayük V-VI, encountered in the Neolithic wooden rear rooms are found in several hous- houses of the Cucuteni-Tripolye-Ar- es. Tere are megaroid structures at iuşd cultural groups. In the houses Küllüoba with a closed porch and rear of these cultures, a porch made up of wooden posts stands in front of the main room (Figure 32: A) (Lasz- lo, 2000). A shrine in Jericho, dated to the PPNP, is the other resemble of this type. Here on level XI, in front of a building that Garstang believes to be a shrine is a veranda-like vestibule supported by six wooden pillars (Fig- ure 32: B). Garstang describes it as a prostyle porch (Garstang, Garstang,

1940; Banning, Byrd, 1988). However, Figure 31. Afyon Ayazini both Cucuteni-Tripolye-Ariuşd and (http://www.webrehberi.net/yerel/ the shrine in Jericho have semi-antae, afyonkarahisar/#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/1/).

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 240 room. Tese rear/back rooms are used as storage facilities. Te other type of plan in the region was the “type with a single anta”. In this type, one of the antae forms the solid long side of the main room and one or more wooden posts/columns are found at the other end (Figure 14). Figure 32. Te comparision of the historical megaroid structures. Tis type with a single anta wall is not A: A house of Cucuteni-Tripolye-Ariuşd culture. B: A shrine in encountered in the historical megara Jericho. C, D, E: Bademağacı. F: Semayük Karataş. G: Bademağacı, and appears to be a local characteristic House 30 (drawn by Salih Ceylan). completely unique to the region. Te porches in the megaroid struc- settlement are covered with fat roofs. tures in the region are shallow in Te long houses built as independent general. Tis type porch resembles structures, however, may have used the Anatolian megarons of Küllüoba, the gabled roof form (Fidan, 2012). In Semayük-Karataş and Bademağacı. Bademağacı for the same reason, the Tese structures all have porches in megaroid buildings are fat roof-cov- front that are not very deep. However, ered. In freestanding buildings at there is some example of a considerably Karataş Semayük too there is evidence deep porch in the region; this exam- that the gabled roof was used (Warner, ple brings to mind a pronaos (Figure 1994). In all of these historical exam- 14: D-E; 27: B). Megarons with deep ples, the roof extended over the porch. porches in Anatolia are seen at Troia I In the structures of the region, two (House 102), Troia II, Bademağacı, and types of wall technique are observed— Küllüoba. stone wall construction and timber-re- None of the megaroid structures in inforced stone construction. Te wall the region have rear antae. Tey have materials were generally rubble stone front antae only. Examples of megarons but there are also examples of rubble without rear antae are found in Anato- stone and fnely cut stone used togeth- lia at Karataş-Semayük, Bademağacı, er. In some buildings, a smooth mud- Gordion, Küllüoba, Troia I (House brick was used together with the stone. 102) and the Troia II, VI. Besides these mixed materials, some Tree types of roof have been used examples also display a mixed wall in the region—a wooden fat roof, a construction. Tere are very few exam- low pitched roof and a gabled roof. In ples of timber-frame stone and mud- all of the roof types, the roof extended brick construction mixed together in a over the porch. Of the historical mega- wall construction system. At Troia, the rons, Gordion exhibits the use of 3 dis- superstructure of the walls is mudbrick tinct groups of roof systems—the ga- and supported by a wooden frame- bled roof, the pitched roof and the fat work. At Bademağacı, the buildings are roof (Berndt-Ersöz, 2006). Te megara built on a stone foundation and mud- at Gordion probably had gabled roofs, brick superstructures. Houses at Gor- as indicated by a completely preserved dion are built of stone or crude brick, poros akroterion whose lower parts using a half-timber structure (Barnett, follow the outline of a pitched roof, 1967). At Gordion, the walls are put and three double-pitched poros blocks together with a wooden framework found at Gordion. Gabled buildings are and flled in-between with masonry also seen in the drawings incised on the screens, forming a skeleton for the con- exterior walls of Megaron 2, inscribed struction (Young, 1962). Timber-rein- on potsherds from Midas City, and forced mud walling construction can represented by three building models also be seen at Karataş Semayük (War- (Roller, 2009). In Troia, the roofs are ner, 1994). At Küllüoba, the remnants fat. At Küllüoba too, because of the of wooden planks have been found “Anatolian settlement siedlungschema” between the stone foundations and the and since the houses are laid out in mudbrick wall above. a row, it is hard to use a gabled roof. Te megaroid buildings in the re- For this reason, the megarons in the gion are generally one-storied. Some

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 241 are on ground level but some rise above digenous Anatolian cultures (Tanyeli, a sub-basement. A few have megaroid 1996; Köse 2005). Tey chose the exist- structures rising above a barn. Te ing house plans of the indigenous peo- structures built on top of sub-base- ple in the region when the time came ments are accessed with a few steps of for them to meet their need for perma- stairs. At Tell Tayinat Building II and nent housing. Tis choice, which is the XVI, although the structures are on result of cultural adaptation, creates ground level, entrance was gained by natural architectural continuity. means of a stepped porch, fanked by A look into the plan types, materi- two columns in antis (Harrison, 2012). als and constructions systems Turkish Te annexes used as barns or hay- populations preferred in their transi- lofs in the megaroid buildings in the tion to a settled lifestyle reveal a close region are generally attached to the similarity with the traditional hous- short side of the structure in the back ing patterns of the regions that they but in only one example, an annex settled in (Tanyeli, 1996; Köse, 2005). has been added to the long side of the Te Anatolian culture is not homoge- building (Figure 20). In the historical neous. Each subregion contained vari- megara, House 66 is the only exam- ous cultural traditions. It was because ple in Karataş-Semayük of an annex of this that displayed diferent region- added to the long side of the building al plan types. At the same time, new (Warner, 1979). Te annex was prob- environmental conditions such as cli- ably built later both in Karataş and in mate, geography and topography, as the region. Te annex was not entered well as cultural interaction were also from the main building and is sepa- infuential in this choice. T ey were rately roofed (Warner, 1979). however adapted to particular needs. Te megaroid buildings in the re- We found the megaroid buildings in gion are located in three locations; the region refecting the regional taste freestanding, adjacent or abutting an- in that the local house plans in the other structure and attached parallel to region appear both socially and func- the courtyard wall. But, the historical tionally suitable for the newly migrat- megara (except the Anatolian settle- ing nomadic Turks. ment siedlungschema) were freestand- Many historical house types are still ing structures. being used in the rural architecture of Anatolia and the Near East can be seen 7. Conclusion in other plan types as well. Researchers As can be seen, the megaroid struc- Klinhott, Ragette, Yagi, Cerasi, Koby- tures in the Phrygian highlands share chev and Robakidze have reported that with the historical megara, the similar- rural houses constructed in the style of ities in their plan types, construction historical plan types such as megaron, systems and materials, point to the bit-hilani, tarma house, riwaq house, existence of this type in the regional iwan house, houses with inner court- memory of rural architecture and to an yards and houses with a front sofa, are architectural continuity in the region. still used in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghan- How do we explain these similarities istan, Daghistan and the Caucasion exhibited by the historical megaras and region, among other areas (Klinhott, those existing in the houses used today 1978; Ragetta, 1974; Yagi, 1983; Cera- by Turkmen groups in the area afer si, 2014; Kobychev, Robakidze, 1969). all this time has passed? Te nomad- Tis is because traditional rural archi- ic Turkmen tribes entered Anatolia in tecture is less prone to the impact of the 11th century. Tey transitioned into rapid cultural change and has evolved their settled lifestyle only at the end of as a result of cultural continuity. the 19th century afer a long period of Anatolian traditional rural architec- living as nomads (Ögel, 1991; Kavas, ture also has a very rich cultural her- 2012). With the start of their settled itage related to the past. With this as inhabitation, the Turkmen tribes who its starting point, research conducted had made use of yörük tents during about Anatolia rural architecture con- their nomadic and semi-nomadic pe- stitutes an important resource that will riods were inevitably infuenced by in- shed light on studies into comparative

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 242 evaluations of the housing architecture ceedings 4th International Congress on to be found in the layers of history hid- Science andTechnology for the Safe- den in any particular region. Te con- guard of Cultural Heritage in the Med- cept of the Anatolian Turkish house has iterranean Basin, vol. I, Cairo, Egypt, been in interaction for centuries with 229-236. the Anatolian cultures that have been a Aşılıoğlu, F., Memlük, Y. (2010). Frig part of this region, and has accordingly Vadisi Kültür Mirası Alanlarının Belir- matured and reached a synthesis. lenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi [Deter- mination and Evaluation of Cultural Acknowledgements Heritage in the Phrygian Valley]. An- Firstly, I extend my deepest respects kara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi and gratitude to the distinguished [Ankara University Journal of Ecolo- scientist Prof. Dr. Jak Yakar, who has gy], 2(2), 185-197. contributed extensively to Anatolian Banning, E.B., Byrd, B.F. (1988). archeology and guided me in my work Southern Levantine Pier Houses: In- with his most valuable viewpoint and tersite Architectural Patterning during comments. I am also thankful for the the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Paléorient, kind contributions of Prof. Dr. Timo- 14(1), 65-72. thy P. Harrison in helping me to access Barnett, R. D. (1967). Phrygia and some sources that I could not reach. the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age, I am strongly indebted to Dr. Caner Te Cambridge Ancient History, Vol- Göçer, who accompanied me to the ume II. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- district. I am very grateful to Salih Cey- versity Press. lan, who took on the task of drawing Berndt-Ersöz, S. (1998). Phrygian up all plans. My deep gratitude goes Rock-Cut Cult Façades: A Study of the to Uğur Süleymanoğlu, who drew the Function of the So-Called Shaf Mon- maps. I extend a special thank you to uments. Anatolian Studies, 48, 87-112. all the residents of the villages in Sey- Berndt-Ersöz, S. (2006). Phrygian itgazi and Ihsaniye, who showered me Rock-Cut Shrines: Structure, Function, with warm hospitality and assistance. and Cult Practice. Leiden, Brill: Cul- ture and History of the Ancient Near References East, vol.25. Akurgal, E. (2000). Anadolu Kültür Bintlif, J. (2012). Te Complete Tarihi [Te Cultural History of Anato- Archaeology of Greece: From Hunt- lia]. Ankara: TÜBITAK Popüler Bilim er-Gatherers to the 20th Century A.D. Kitapları, 417. UK: Wiley- Blackwell. Altınsapan, E. (1999). Tarihsel Blegen, C. W. (1937). Excavations Gelişim Sürecinde Eskişehir Bölge- at Troy, 1936. American Journal of Ar- sindeki Ortaçağ Türk Yerleşimleri ve chaeology, 41, 17–51. Yapısal Boyutu [Medieval Turk Set- Blegen, C. W. (1953). Te Palace tlements and Structural Dimensions of Nestor Excavations at Pylos, 1952. in the Eskisehir Region during the American Journal of Archaeology, Historical Development]. Anadolu 57(2), 59-64. Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Blegen, C.W., Rawson, M. (1966). [Anadolu University Faculty of the Let- Te Palace of Nestor at Pylos in West- ters Magazine], 1(1), 1-16. ern Messenia, I. Te Buildings and their Ambrosini, L. (2009). Te Rock-Cut Contents. Princeton: Princeton Univer- Tombs of the Necropolis of Norchia (Vit- sity Press. erbo-Italy): An Important Example of Burdo, N., Videiko, M., Chapman, Ancient Architecture that must be Pre- J., Gaydarska, B. (2013). Houses in the served. in Ferrari, A. (ed). Proceedings Archaeology of the Tripillia-Cucuteni 4th International Congress on Science Groups. in: Hofmann, D., Smyth, J. and Technology for the Safeguard of (ed), Tracking the Neolithic House in Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Europe. One World Archaeology, Spring- Basin, vol. II, Cairo, Egypt, 217-223. er Science+Business Media, New York, Ambrosini, L. (2012). Te Rock-Cut 94-115. Temple Tombs in the Mediterranean Castel, C. (2010). Te First Temples Area. A Study. in: Ferrari, A. (ed). Pro- in antis. Te Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 243 in the Context of 3rd Millennium Syria. of Western Anatolia. in: Sey, Y. (ed), in: Becker, J., Hempelmann, R., Rehm, Housing and Settlement in Anatolia E. (ed), Kulturlandschaf Syrien, Zen- Historical Perspective, Türkiye Ekono- trum und Peripherie. Festschrif für mik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı Yurt Jan-Waalke Meyer, AOAT 371, Ugarit Yayınları, Istanbul, 70-82. Verlag, Munster, 23-164. Erkanal, H. (2011). Early Bronze Age Cerasi, M. (2014). Te Formation of settlement models and domestic archi- Ottoman House Types: A Comparative tecture in the coastal region of western Study in Interaction with Neighboring Anatolia. in: Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopou- Cultures. Muqarnas Online, Volume lou, P. (ed), Across: Te Cyclades and 15, Issue 1: 116-156. Western Anatolia during the 3rd Mil- David, N., Kramer, C. (2006). Eth- lennium BC, Sabancı University Sakıp noarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Sabancı Museum May 24–August 28, Cambridge University Press. Istanbul, 130–135. Davey, C. J. (1980). Temples of the Eres, Z. (2013). Türkiye’de Gelenek- Levant and the Buildings of Solomon. sel Kırsal Mimarinin Korunması: Tar- Tyndale Bulletin, 31, 107-146. ihsel Süreç, Yasal Boyut [Consevation Deroy, L. (1948). Le Megaron of the Traditional Rural Architecture homerique. Recherches d’etymologie in Turkey: Historical Process and Legal grecque. Revue Belge de Philolgie Et Aspect], in: Eyüpgiller, K.K., Eres, Z. D’Histoire, 26 (3), 525-537. (eds), Prof.Dr. Nur Akın’a Armağan – Dörpfeld, W. (1902). Troja und Il- Mimari ve Kentsel Koruma [Festschrif ion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in to Prof.Dr. Nur Akın. Conservation of den vorhistorischen und historischen Architecture and Urban], YEM Yayın- Schichten von Ilion 1870–1894. Athens: ları, 457-469. Beck&Barth. Fidan, E. (2012). Küllüoba İlk Tunç Duru, R. (2003). Bademağacı Ka- Çağı Mimarisi [Küllüoba: the Bronz zıları. 2000 ve 2001 Yılları Çalışma Age Architecture]. MASROP E-DER- Raporu [Excavations of Bademağacı. Gİ, 7 [MASROP E-JOURNAL], 1-44. 2000 and 2001 Work Report]. Belleten, Garstang, J. (1953). Prehistoric Mer- LXVI, 549-594. sin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Efe, T. (1996). 1995 Yılında Kütahya, Oxford: Te Clarendon Press. Bilecik ve Eskişehir İllerinde Yapılan Garstang, J., Garstang, J.B.E. (1940). Yüzey Araştırmaları [Kütahya, Bi- Te Story of Jericho. London: Hodder lecik and Eskişehir Surveys in 1995]. and Stoughton Ltd. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı [Re- Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., search Results Meetings]. II, 215-232. Sivas, T., Sivas, H. (2012). Reconstruct- Efe, T., Ay-Efe, D. (2001). Küllüoba: ing Iron Age Community Dynamics İç Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Bir İlk Tunç in Eskişehir Province, Central Turkey. Çağı Kenti. 1996-2000 Yılları Arasın- Journal of Archaeological Method and da Yapılan Kazı Çalışmalarının Genel Teory, 19(3), 377-406. Değerlendirmesi [Küllüoba: An Early Harrison, T. P. (2012). West Syrian Bronze Age city in northwestern Ana- megaron or Neo-Assyrian Langraum? tolia. Overview of the Excavations car- Te Shifing Form and Function of the ried out between the years 1996-2000]. Tell Tayınat (Kunulua) Temples. in: TÜBA-AR, IV, 43-78. Kamlah, J. (ed), Temple Building and Efe, T., Sarı, D., Fidan, E. (2011). Temple Cult Architecture and Cultic Te Signifcance of the Keçiçayırı Ex- Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant cavations in the Prehistory of Inland (2.– 1. Mill. B.C.E.), Harrassowitz Ver- Nortwest Anatolia. in: Bilgen, A. N., lag, Wiesbaden, 3-23. Von den Hof, R., Sandalcı, S., Silek, S. Harrison, T.P., & Osborne, J.F. (ed), Archaeological Research in West- (2012). Building XVI and the Neo-As- ern Central Anatolia. Te IIIrd Inter- syrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat. national Symposium of Archaeology, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 64, 125- Kütahya 8th-9th, March 2010, Dumlu- 143. pınar University, Üçmart Press, 9-29. Haspels, C. H. E. (1971), Te High- Erkanal, H. (1996). Early Bronze lands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments. Age Urbanization in the Coastal Region New Jersey: Princeton University.

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 244

Hiller, S. (1986). Early and Late Hel- Kavas, K. R. (2012). Türk Konut ladic ‘Magara’: Questions of Architectur- Mimarisinde Tarihsel Süreklilikler al Continuity in Bronze Age Greece. in: [Historical Continuities in Turkish Hägg, R., Konsola, D. (ed), Early Hel- Domestic Architecture: Central Asia ladic Architecture and Urbanization, and Anatolia]. Belleten, LXXVI/276, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 503-538. 76, Göteborg, 85-89. Kjelden, K., Zahle, J. (1975). Lyki- Hodder, I (1982). Symbols in Action. sche Graber. Ein vorlaufger Bericht. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Archaologischer Anzeiger, 1975, 312- Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 330. versity Press. Klinhott, M. (1978) Megaron und Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the Past. Bit Hilani. Wohnungsbau im Altertum, Current Approches to Interpretation in Collectif, Deutsches archäologisches Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Institut, Berlin, 62-71. University Press. Knox, M.O. (1973). Megarons and Hopkins, C. (1968). Te Megaron of MEGARA: Homer and Archaeology. the Mycenaean Palace. Studi Micenei Classical Quarterly, 23, 1-21. ed Egeo-Anatolici 6, 45-53. Kobychev, V. P., Robakidze, A. I. Hrouda, B. (1970). Die “Mega- (1969). Basic Typology and Mapping ron”-Bauten in Vorderasien. Anatolia, of Dwellings of the Caucasian Peoples. 14, 1-14. Soviet Anthrology and Archeology, Vol- Hundley, M. B. (2013), Gods in ume 7, Issue 4: 13-28. Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence Korfmann, M. (1983). Demirci- in the Ancient Near East. the USA: So- höyük I: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabun- ciety of Biblical Lit. gen 1975-78; Architektur, Stratigraphie Ilaslı, A. (2004). İlk Yerleşimden Türk und Befunde. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Egemenliğine Kadar Afyon [Afyon: Zabern. From the Prehistoric Settlements to the Kortanoğlu, E. (2011). Rock-cut Turk Sovereigty], in: Uyan, M., Yüksel, tombs which are located in the High- İ., Avşar, N. (ed), Anadolu’nun Kilidi lands of Phrygia: An analysis within the Afyon [Afyon: the Lock of Anatolia], frame of Hellenistic and Roman impe- T.C. Afyon Valiliği Yayınları, Afyon, rial periods in context of typology and 49-62. façade carving. in: Bilgen, A. N., Von Işık, F. (1998). Megaron. Özel Bir den Hof, R., Sandalcı, S., Silek, S. Yapı Tipinin Kökeni, Gelişimi ve Bir (ed), Archaeological Research in West- Ege Tapınağı’na Dönüşümü [Megaron: ern Central Anatolia. Te IIIrd Inter- Origin, Development and Transforma- national Symposium of Archaeology, tion in an Aegean Temple of a Special Kütahya 8th-9th, March 2010, Dumlu- Type], ADALYA, II, 1-49. pınar University, Üçmart Press, 94-121. Işık, F., Yılmaz, H. I. (1996). Struc- Köse, A. (2005). Türkiye’de Gelenek- tural Links between the Houses and the sel Kırsal Konut Planlarında Göçebe Tomb in Lycia. in: Sey, Y. (ed), Hous- Türk Kültürü İzleri [Traces of Nomadic ing and Settlement in Anatolia Histor- Turkish Culture on the Plans of Tradi- ical Perspective, Türkiye Ekonomik ve tional Rural Houses in Turkey] Afyon Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Istanbul, 171-181. Enstitüsü Dergisi, VII/2, 165-200. Ivanova, M. (2013). Domestic Ar- Laszlo, A. (2000). Some Data on chitecture in the Early Bronze Age of House-Building Technıques and Foun- Western Anatolia: the Row-Houses of datoin Rites in the Arıuşd-cucuteni Troy I, Anatolian Studies, 63, 17-33. Culture. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologi- Karazeybek, M. (2004). Selçuklu ve ca, VII, 245-253. Beylikler Dönemi’nde AfyonKarahisar Lloyd, S., Mellart, J. (1962). Beyce- [AfyonKarahisar in the Age of Seljuks sultan. Volume 1. Ankara: Te British and Turks Principalities]. in: Uyan, Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. M., Yüksel, İ., Avşar, N. (ed), Anado- Mellaart, J. (1959). Notes on the Ar- lu’nun Kilidi Afyon [Afyon: the Lock chitectural Remains of Troy I and II. of Anatolia], T.C. Afyon Valiliği Yayın- Anatolian Studies, 9, 131-162. ları, Afyon, 63-75. Mellart, J. (1970). Excavations at

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 245

Hacılar I-II. Edinburg: Te British In- Schliemann, H. (1885). Tiryns. Te stitute of Archaeology at Ankara. Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns. Mellink, M. J. (1986). Te Early New York: C. Scribner’s sons. Bronze Age in West Anatolia: Aegean Schweitzer, B. (1951). Megaron und and Asiatic Correlations. in: Cadogan, Hofaus in Der Ägäis des 3–2. Jahrtau- G. (ed), Te End of the Early Bronze sends V. Chr. Te Annual of the British Age in the Aegean, J. Brill, Leiden, 139- School at Athens, 46, 160-167. 152. Sevin, V. (2007). Anadolu’nun Tarihi Metzger, H., Coupel, P. (1963). Coğrafyası I [Te Historical Geography Fouilles de Xanthos Tome II, L’acropole of Anatolia I], Ankara: Türk Tarih Ku- lycienne. Paris: Klincksieck. rumu. Müller, V. (1944). Development of Smith, E. B. (1942). Te Megaron the “Megaron” in Prehistoric Greece. and Its Roof. American Journal of Ar- American Journal of Archaeology, 48, chaeology, 46(1), 99-118 342-348. Summers, G.D., Summers, F., Brant- Naumann, R. (1998). Eski Anadolu ing, S. (2004). Megarons and Associ- Mimarlığı [Te Ancient Anatolian Ar- ated Structures at Kerkenes Dag: An chitecture], Ankara: Türk Tarih Kuru- Interım Report. Anatolia Antiqua, XII, mu. 7-41. Neve, P. (1996). Housing in Hattu- Tanyeli, U. (1996). Anadolu’da sha, the Capital of the Hitite Kingdom. Bizans, Osmanlı Öncesi ve Osman- in: Sey, Y. (ed), Housing and Settlement lı Dönemi’nde Yerleşme ve Barınma in Anatolia Historical Perspective, Tür- Düzeni [Te Settlement Pattern in kiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Anatolia in the Byzantine, Pre-Otto- Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Istanbul, 99-115. man and Ottoman Periods]. Tariht- Omura, S. (1999). Te Eleventh Ex- en Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve cavation in Kaman-Kalehöyük 1996. Yerleşim [Housing and Settlement in in: Mikasa, H.I.H.P.T. (ed), Essays on Anatolia from the Historical Periods Ancient Anatolia. Bulletin of the Mid- to Today], T.C. Başbakanlık TOKI II. dle Eastern Culture Center in Japan XI, B.M. Insan Yerleşimleri-Habitat 1996 Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 51- Konferansı Bildiriler ve Sergi Kitabı, 93. 405-471. Ögel, B. (1991). Türk Kültür Tari- Vassileva, M. (2012). Te Rock-cut hine Giriş 7 [Introduction to Turk Cul- Monuments of Phrygia, Paphlagonia tural History], Ankara: Kültür Bakan- and Trace; A Comparative Overview. lığı/638, Kültür Eserleri/46. in: Tsetskhladze, G. R. (ed), Te Black Özdoğan, M. (2002). Te Bronze Age Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Trace in Relation to the Emergence in Antiquity. Aspects of Archaeology of Complex Societies in Anatolia and in and Ancient History, BAR Internation- the Aegean. in: Yalçın, Ü. (ed), Anato- al Series 2432, Archaeopress, 243-252. lian Metals II (Der Anschnitt 15), Bo- Yagi, K. (1983) Traditional Houses chum, 67-76. and Living Patterns in Syria, in: Ger- Özgüç, T. (1963). Early Anatolian men, A. (ed), Islamic Architecture Archaeology in the Light of Recent Re- and Urbanism, King Faisal University, search. Anatolia, VII, 1-21. Dammam, 343-353. Ragette, F. (1974) Architecture in Yakar, J. (1985) Te Later Prehistory Lebanon. Beirut: American University of Anatolia. Te Late Chalcolithic and of Beirut. Early Bronze Age. BAR International Roller, L. E. (2009). Te Incised Series 268. Drawings from Early Phrygian Gordi- Yakar, J. (2000). Ethnoarchaeology of on, Gordion Special Studies 4, Museum Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Monograph 130, Philadphia PA: Uni- Bronze and Iron Ages. Tel Aviv: Emery versity of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar- and Claire Yass Publications in Ar- chaeology and Anthropology. chaeology. Rose, C. B. (2012). Te Archaeology Yakar, J. (2005). Ethnoarchaeology in of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Mi- Rural Anatolia. in: Takaoğlu, T. (Ed), das. Philadelphia: University of Penn- Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in sylvania Press. Rural Anatolia, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul,

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia 246

7-14. Warner, K. (1993). Te Megaron Young, R. S. (1960). Gordion: Phry- during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze gian Construction and Architecture: II. Age. A Study of Occurrence, Shape, Ar- Expedition, 2, 1-12. chitectural Adaptation and Function, Young, R. S. (1962). Gordion: Phry- Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology gian Construction and Architecture: II. CVIII. Astroms, Jonsered. Expedition, 4, 2-12. Wright, J. C. (2006). Te Formation Warner, J. (1979). Te Megaron and of the Mycenaean Palace. in: Dege- Apsidal House in Early Bronze Age Jalkotzy, S., Lemos, I. S. (ed), Ancient Western Anatolia: New Evidence from Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces Karataş. American Journal of Archaeol- to the Age of Homer, Edinburg Leven- ogy, 83(2): 133-147. tis Studies 3, 7-52. Warner, J. (1994). Elmalı-Karataş II. Wright, G. R. H. (1985). Ancient Te Early Bronze Age Village of Karataş. Building in South Syria and Palestine. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College Ar- Te Netherlands: Leiden, Brill. chaeological Monographs.

Kırsal Anadolu’nun megarorid yapı- Tunç Çağları’nda ise Troia I-II kalele- larındaki mimari geleneğin süreklili- rinde, kıyı Ege’de Beşiktepe, Bakla Tepe ği: Dağlık Frigya örneği ve Liman Tepe VI yerleşmelerindeki Megaron, ortasında ocak bulunan uuzn evler, Beycesultan’da ev ve kutsal uzun dikdörtgen şeklindeki bir ana yapılar, Antalya Bademağacı ve Kara- oda ile bu odanın yan duvarlarının taş-Semayük, Eskişehir Küllüoba, De- (ante duvarları) uzaltılmasıyla yapının mircihöyük ve Keçiçayırı yerleşmeleri önünde oluşturulan üzeri örtülü bir ile Marmara Bölgesi’ndeki Kanlegeçit portikodan/ante odasından (sundur- megaron planın ünlü temsilcileridir. ma) oluşan yapıdır. Planın erken evre- Frig mimarisi ise megaron planla öz- lerinde megaron, portikosuz/ante oda- deşleştirilmiş durumdadır. Megaron sız tek bir oda iken ilerleyen evrelerde plan Anadolu’da orta Anadolu’ya kadar plana bazen ana odanın yan duvarla- yayılmış olup bu bölgelerdeki Büyük- rının arkaya doğru uzatılmasıyla oluş- kale, Kültepe ve Kerkenes dağı yerleş- turulmuş bir arka portiko/arka ante meleri Geç Tunç ve Demir Çağları’nda (sundurma) eklenir. Megaron planlı megaron planlı yapılar içerir (Neve, yapılarda örtü genelde beşik çatı iken 1996; Özgüç, 1963; Summers et al., düz çatı da kullanılmıştır. 2004). Dörpfeld, Tiryns ve Pylos daki Mi- Bu alan araştırması, Frigya vadisinin ken sarayları için megaron terimini Dağlık Frigya olarak bilinen bölümü- kullanan ilk araştırmacıdır. Megaron nün günümüzde kapladığı alan olan türü yapıların kökenine dair farklı gö- Eskişehir Seyitgazi and Afyon İhsaniye rüşler bulunmakla birlikte araştırma- ilçelerinin köylerini kapsayan alanda cılar en erken megaron türü yapılarla gerçekleştirilmiştir. 2014 yılı Ağustos Neolitik Çağ’da Trakya, Makedonya ve ayında gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmanın Tesselya ovasındaki konutlarda rast- amacı, Frigya vadisinin bu bölgesin- lanıldığı konusunda hem fikirdirler. deki köylerinde “megaron türü” yapı Megaron planın bu ilk örnekleri izole geleneğinin izlerini arayarak, bölgede şekilde konumlandırılmış, uzun dik- kırsal mimaride var olduğu tarafımızca dörtgen şeklinde tek odalı, bazıları düz ileri sürülen “yapısal sürekliliğe” işaret bazıları ise beşik çatılı yapılardır. Tunç etmektir. Çağı, megaron planın en yaygın kul- Bölgede bu amaçla gerçekleştiri- lanıldığı dönemdir. Bu dönemde Poli- len arazi çalışmasında megaron özel- ochni, Termi ve Miken saraylarında liği gösteren, bir ana oda ve önünde megaron planlı saray ve bey konutları- portikodan (sundurma) oluşan, düz na rastlanılır. ve beşik çatılı yapılara rastlanmış ve Megaron plan Anadolu’da da sevi- temkinli olmak amacıyla bu yapılar lerek kullanılmış bir plandır. Erken “megaronumsu”, “megaron benzeri” örneği Kalkolitik Çağ’da Hacılar II, Yü- ve “megaron özellikli” yapılar olarak müktepe XVI ve Beycesultan XXIV da, tanımlanmıştır. Bölgenin mimari kim-

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • A. Erarslan 247 liğini oluşturmada önemli payı olduğu malzemesi ve çatı sistemi açısından gözlenen bu yapıların bugün bir kısmı bazı benzerlikler taşıdıkları görül- yıkıktır. Ayakta olanların bir kısmı ise mektedir. Bu durum bölgede megaron ya terkedilmiş ya da depoya dönüş- benzeri yapılar açısından kesintisiz bir türülmüştür. Bölgede bugün in use mimari sürekliliğe işaret etmektedir. durumunda hiçbir yapıya rastlanma- Tarihsel megaronlarla bölgedeki me- mıştır. Yapıların kesin yaşları bilinme- garon tarzı yapılar arasındaki benzer- mekle birlikte kullanıcılarından alınan lik açıklanmaya çalışıldığında ise bu bilgilere göre ortalama yaş aralıkları durum, bölgeye 11. yüzyıldan itibaren 120-140 yıl arasındadır. Bölgede 2 an- gelmeye başlayan Türkmen grupların teli, in antis, tek anteli, prostyle, kapalı yerleşik düzene geçiş sürecinde, göçebe portikolu ve arka odalı, olmak üzere 6 ve yarı göçebe dönemin yörük çadırını megaron özellikli plan tipi tespit edil- terkederek bölgedeki yerli halktan gör- miştir. dükleri bu planı kalıcı konut planı ola- Bu yapılar Anadolu ve Yakın Do- rak tercih ettikleri şeklinde düşünül- ğu’daki tarihsel megaronlarla karşılaş- mektedir (Tanyeli, 1996; Ögel, 1991; tırıldığında plan, yapım tekniği, yapı Kavas, 2012).

Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia