IJRSS Vol29 P1 Dec18 Leyla

TRACING THE HISTORICAL MULTI-LAYEREDNESS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE AND MATERIALS OF EDIFICES IN AMASYA

1DR. LEYLA ETYEMEZ CIPLAK

1Inst. Dr., Department of Architecture, Cankaya University, Ankara, TURKEY E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The major subject of this study is understanding the physical evidences of the historical multi-layeredness in historic settlement of Amasya through the used construction techniques and materials in different edifices from succeeding periods.

Keywords: Historical Multi-Layeredness, Construction Technique and Material, Historic Buildings, Historic Multi-Layered Settlements, Amasya.

1. INTRODUCTION between the mountains of Harşena and Ferhat, about 400m above the sea-level. Multi-layered historic settlements are the outcome of continual historical periods whose remaining edifices are stratified and integrated with the latter periods elements while constituting the current urban structure. In order to understand and evaluate this multi-layered character in current settlement, the urban history of the settlement is the main issue to be comprehended. Afterwards, for the identification of the urban historic periods and revealing the historical stratification of the settlement, a diachronic documentation1 is needed. As a consequence, this documentation and study can provide a basis for revealing the historically Figure 1: Figure 1: Topography of Amasya stratified areas which contain the physical remains (http://www.yesilirmak.org.tr, last accessed on 09.12.2018) representing the multi-layered character. Subsequently, by examining the construction technique and materials of the edifices in these The most obvious geographical aspects of areas, the physical evidences of different periods as Amasya are, the hilly mountains surrounding the the identification of the mutli-layeredness can be settlement and the Yeşilırmak River which splits the traced. land and shapes the Yeşilırmak Valley. The alluvial carried by the river forms the flat lands along the Yesilırmak Valley. As a result of its natural features, 2. BRIEF LOOK ON AMASYA providing military security and fruitful lands, Amasya has always been a significant settlement in Amasya, as a multi-layered historic settlement, the region. is found in the inner part of the Black Sea region of Turkey. The neighbor cities of Amasya are Samsun The settlement is in the primary earthquake on the north, Tokat on the east and south-east, zone of Turkey by being on the fault line of North Çorum on the west and Yozgat in the south. The Anatolia. Since the settlement centre is located on a settlement was established in the Yesilırmak valley strong limestone rock formation, the extensive

1 Diachronic documentation means the documentation of each itself in order to juxtapose the current settlement with these period separately for understanding the integrity of each period in historical periods and reveal the physical evidences (Bilgin, 1996) 1

Dec. 2018. Vol. 29. No.1 ISSN-2307-227X International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2019 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss effects of earthquakes limitedly affected Amasya. period the city flourished as an education centre of The two earliest documented earthquakes were in the sons of Ottoman sultans constituting it as a 236 BC and 509 BC, respectively during Roman significant administrative centre. Through its Periods (Kuzucular, 1994). Any major earthquake history, the city expansion is developed at most in was recorded until 16th. But, after the 16th century this period. Mosques, schools, governmental, many earthquakes were recorded, the biggest were military and commercial buildings were built (Urak, in the 1668 AD and 1939 AD of which the centre 1994). was Erzincan (Demirçay, 1954).

Figure 3: A restitutive representation of Amasya in antiquity (http://www.yesilirmak.org.tr, last accessed on Figure 2: Geological map of Amasya (Bektas, 2001) 09.12.2018)

Amasya has been continuously inhabited since After the 19th century, the historic urban the Chalcolithic Era (5500BC-3800BC) starting structure of the city started to dissolve. Primarily, from the peak of the Harşena Mountain because of after the 1913 fire which destroyed almost one third the advantages for the military security. Following of city, the urban development process was the constructed fortifications in the Hellenistic enhanced. In mid-20th century, by the establishment period, the settlement extended and towards the of the Republic of Turkey, the rapid urban Yesilırmak River and Herşena Mountain’s south development and renovations in the technologies, foothills. In the Hellenistic period Amasya was a tools and approaches of construction and planning, capital city and enlarged towards the four directions the natural process of urban development and within the borders of the topographical thresholds. transformation had been interrupted. The railway In this period, the city financially developed and road, new large roads and public areas, new construction activities were accelerated. Rock buildings with larger mass proportions were erected. Tombs, castle, Alçak Bridge and the city walls were In the most of these new cases, the result was the remains of this period. Successively, in the Roman loss of different historical and archaeological period the city was also an important settlement on heritage. the passage way of commercial route. In the Roman period, the settlement was enlarged towards the 3. DIACHRONIC DOCUMENTATION OF topographical thresholds. City walls, roman baths, AMASYA temples, tombs, altars, cisterns were constructed. (Yaşar, 2007), (Kuzucular, 1994) In Amasya the first settled area was on the peak of Harşena Mountain by Hittites. After Hittites, Afterwards, in the Byzantine Period the city Phrygians ruled the city and extended settled area became a religious centre and churches, monasteries towards the outside the city walls (Özdemir C. , and bridges were constructed. After the 7th century 2007, p. 10). As a consequence of the topographical BC the city shrunk into the city walls due to the features of the land there could only be a invasions. After the conquest of Danishmends the hypothetical street parallel to the river. According to city was declared as a capital city, the settlement Kuzucular there had been a bridge far away to the area was expanded again. Subsequently, in Seljuk, settlement on the north-east linking the street Ilkhanids and Eretna Principality period the city coming from Tokat to Samsun (1994, p. 14). became a cultural and production centre. Mosques, medreses, hospitals, hamams, fountains and tombs were built (Kuzucular, 1994). Then, in the Ottoman

Furthermore, a Phrygian temple on the south side of Roman Period that, Amasya was an important the river on the ancient road is predicted.2 commercial centre and a rich settlement. Therefore, many structures should have been constructed. However only known edifices are a roman bath and a Goddess Temple, where now the Bayezid Complex and the Municipality building is located (Kuzucular, 1994, p. 121)

Figure 4: Figure 4: Diachronic plan of Periods Before the Hellenistic Period in Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 77)

During the Hellenistic Period, city was ruled by Pontus Kingdom and extended towards the outside of the fortifications and towards the south side of the river by referring to the Alçak Bridge which was Figure 6: Diachronic plan of Roman Period in Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 80) built. The citadel, city walls and the bridge belonging to earlier periods were restored. During the Byzantine Period, the metropolis Additionally, the rock tombs, the current form of the character of the city has continued while becoming citadel and the palace, which represents the also a religious centre. Many churches and two new developing administrative organization of the bridges Helkıs and Magdenus bridges are the settlement, were constructed in this period. edifices claimed to have been constructed. Moreover, the settled area on the south of the river According to Kuzucular, the names of few of these was a rural, slum area with low density but it is churches are known. The locations of these churches known that due to the financial developments, the are being supposed with accordance to the current city had expanded towards these topographical names of the quarters at the present (1994, p. 24). thresholds (Kuzucular, 1994, p. 94). One other urban element stated to exist in this period is the aqueduct, which was on south-west, north-east axis on the south of river (Özdemir C. , 2007, p. 136).

Figure 7: Diachronic plan of Byzantine Period in Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 81)

Figure 5: Diachronic plan of Pontus Kingdom Period in Besides the remains in the city walls, another Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 78) in-situ remain from this period is Fethiye Mosque which was a church and converted into a mosque in Due to the battles for adding Amasya to the Danishmend Period. Afterwards, in 7th century Roman territories the castle and city walls were together with the Arab invasions the city started to demolished. Then these structures were reconstructed shrink towards the inside of the city walls. Between due to the advantages of military and security facilities. the 7th and 11th centuries, citadel and inner city of Throughout this period, the city gained the character of Amasya became a shelter with thanks to its a metropolis and reached almost its geographical limits. topographical aspects (Kuzucular, 1994, p. 32). It can be understood from the coins belonging to

2 METU Graduate School Restoration Archive, 1999 An Urban Conservation Project: Amasya- Hatuniye Quarter 3

During the Danishmend period the city expanded towards the south side and the outside of the city walls firstly by means of small enlargements around mescids of zaviyes. Afterwards, the settlements extended towards topographical thresholds of the land. The known edifices belong to this period without a physical evidence are the Melik Gazi Medresesi, Yağıbasan Hanı and the Danishmend Palace. Furthermore, Enderun (Log Minare) Mosque which is totally demolished in 1984 is an important edifice for this period. On the other hand, Fethiye Mosque which is mentioned Figure 8: Diachronic plan of Seljuk and Principalities above as being a church converted to a mosque in Period in Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 83) this period. is another trace of this period (Kuzucular, 1994, p. 35). Eretna Principality period which lasted about a half century, legated Saraçhane Mosque, Kadılar and During the Seljuk period the urban structure of Şadgeldi Paşa Tombs which are still standing. On the settlement did not alter much. The financial the other hand, Alaca Yahya Medresesi and Mehmet activities begun to develop, after the dominance Çelebi Mescidi were the other edifices which had struggles had set right in Anatolia. Accordingly, the been lost before the Republican Period (Yaşar, construction activates hardly established towards 2007, p. 79). the end of this period. The remarkable addition that affected the urban structure was the Sultan Bridge In Ottoman period, referring to a long period of which provided the physical relation between the time, the architectural activities in Amasya were inner and outer city. Hilafet Gazi Medresesi and extended and receded in accordance with the Burmalı Minare Mosque are the still existing political and financial power of the Ottoman important buildings from this period. The other Empire. Remarkable construction activities took buildings belonging to this period are the Doğrakiye place before the 17th century and the city enlarged Mescidi, and Seljuk Palace. Additionally, the area its largest limits towards the topographical where the Bayezid Complex is existing now, was thresholds to the east-west direction. Accordingly, used as an open-air worshipping place (musalla) during the first 150 years, Amasya became an (Kuzucular, 1994, pp. 37-40). Besides, Çukur important cultural and administrative centre and Hamam and Sultan Mesut Tomb cannot be exactly religious, cultural, commercial, administrative dated. Due to low ground level of the Çukur Hamam buildings were constructed. Çilehane Mosque, and the plan schema and facade organization of the Bayezid Paşa Mosque, Yörgüç Paşa Mosque, II. Sultan Mesut Tomb which is totally different from Bayezid Complex, Sofular Mosque, Mehmet Paşa the Ilkanids’, these edifices are assumed from Seljuk Mosque, Büyük Ağa Medresesi, Ayas Ağa Mescidi Period in the mid-13th century (Özdemir C. , 2007). ve Medresesi, Hızır Paşa Complex, Bedesten, Gümüşlü Mosque, Hatuniye Mosque are important When the Ilkhanids conquered the city, buildings dated to the first 150 years of the Ottoman although Anatolia was in a state of chaos due to the Period. Moreover, the citadel walls were restored throne fights, Amasya was in a secure and peaceful and a new Beyler Palace was built on southeast side situation. Therefore, the construction activities were of the city (Özdemir E. , 2003). continued and also the city was developed. The settled area approached the borders of the After the 17th century, financial problems were topographical thresholds, so that the density of the occurred due to the military and administrative expansion area was increased with new monuments defeats. Subsequently, after 18th century, Ottomans and buildings. Gökmedrese Mosque and Medrese, continued to lose their financial and military power Torumtay Tomb, Bimarhane and Mevlevihane are especially as a result of the developments in the the well-known Ilkhanid buildings which still exist. west. In order to campaign for the financial Atabey Medresesi, Rukneddin Kılıçarslan Palace, developments, commercial buildings were Mu’ineddin Pervane Palace, Darphane, and Taciye constructed in 18th century on the ancient trade Mosque are the other edifices which do not exist route. Most significant building from this period is now (Kuzucular, 1994, s. 40-43). Taşhan. Therefore, this trade route described a commercial linear axis on the south side of the river

Dec. 2018. Vol. 29. No.1 ISSN-2307-227X International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2019 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss where Taşhan and Bedesten exist now as the physical evidences of this period.

Figure 10: Diachronic plan of Early Republican Period in Amasya (Etyemez, 2011, p. 87)

Figure 9:Diachronic plan of Ottoman Period in Amasya 4. DISCUSSIONS ON THE MULTI- (Etyemez, 2011, p. 85) LAYEREDNESS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE AND Successively, in the 19th century, with the new MATERIALS reforms in the entire Empire, new regulations and building types were introduced. The urban structure Consequently, it can be followed from the and character of the city was started to be altered. diachronic plans of the historic periods of Amasya New military, administrative and educational that the city has been continuously settled ever since buildings; new public areas such as large roads and the beginning. Each layer of the time periods is squares were constructed while destroying some analysed and they are tried to be produced in order earlier remains. Government Building, prison and to superpose historic layers for revealing the post office are the main examples of these historically stratified areas. This diachronic developments. Additionally, devastating disasters, documentation shows that in-situ remains as demolished the city in various times. The most physical evidences and traces of different periods destructive disaster was the fire in 1913 which are observable in the current city. By juxtaposing all influenced one third of the city and initiated the successive periods with the current city, the most rapid transformation process (Kuzucular, 1994, pp. stratified areas are determined in order to examine 95-97). the construction techniques and materials of the physical evidences for understanding the multi- After the foundation of the Turkish Republic, layeredness. Therefore, as it is shown on the figure the city naturally went beyond the topography and below, three areas are designated as the stratified continuously enlarged. Modern administrative and areas in which the evidences of the multi- educational buildings were built. Municipality layeredness is planned to be traced. Building, Courthouse, Kılıçarslan Primary School, railway station are the primary examples. Mainly after the foundation of the Republic, starting from the construction of the railway road, the urban transformation process was accelerated. Moreover, after the destructive disasters, most of the city was demolished and later reconstructed or restored. The most significant ones were the earthquakes in 1939 and 1943. Afterwards, the flood in 1948 also demolished the public and residential buildings in the vicinity of the river. As an initiative of the Figure 11: Historical Stratification in Multi-Layered government, new residential buildings were Historic Settlement Amasya. After (Etyemez, 2011, p. 92) constructed for the victims of these disasters. These modern residential units called Yüzevler and Ellibeşevler were built in the area where had been empty for about 25 years as a consequence of the 1913 fire. These areas. Mainly after the mid-20th century development plans were prepared and applied while exterminating the traditional urban tissue (Etyemez, 2011, p. 86). 5

4.1. Multi-Layered Area 1 These remains are thought to be the edifices of the Byzantine Church which is shown in the Byzantine The first area is in the Gökmedrese Quarter Period diachronic plan. There are also big limestone which is at south west side of the city centre. The blocks which are again thought to be reused for area is bordered by Mustafa Kemal Paşa Street on constructing the medrese building. Most of stone the north and the residential buildings on the south. blocks are dispersed around the area while some of The area is divided into two important historical them are standing in-situ with equal intervals areas by Torumtay Street which gets its name from towards the tomb on the Torumtay Street. According the one of the significant architectural heritage from to Urak, the continuation of the in-situ stone blocks Ilkhanid Period on the west side of this area. shows that the Byzantine edifice is continuing under the tomb also (1994, p. 155). Again, with regards to Urak the mummies in the tomb building which is an unusual thing for the Seljuk tombs shows also that there may be a memoriam structure directly related with the church and next to it. In addition, the only source that is reached about this church is the translations of “Danishmendname” of Muzaffer Doğanbaş who is an art historian and the assistant manager of the Amasya Museum. According to his translations which is an unpublished personal archive, it is written in the “Danishmendname” that the Halifet Gazi Tomb and Medrese was constructed Figure 12: The Multi-layered Area 1 onto a Byzantine church.

In this area, there are three historical tombs and remains of a medrese building. One of these tombs is the Halifet Gazi Tomb that belongs to the Seljuk Period and constructed in 1225 together with a medrese building with the same name. According to various sources the tomb was constructed with Halifet Gazi Medrese over a Byzantine Church remains (Urak, 1994, p. 153).

Figure 14: Old Photograph of Halifet Gazi Tomb and Bzyantine Church Remains (Gabriel, 1934)

The stone blocks in front of the tomb are limestone blocks in different sizes and they were possibly reused after the Church had been demolished. The remains of the medrese building as a partial brick masonry wall is also possibly reused after the Church. The brick units’ dimensions are about 59-60x27-59x5-6 cm in the wall and 23x23- 46x5-6 cm in the arch. The dimensions of these brick units are in accord with the roman bipedalis (59,2cm) and sequipedalis (44,4) (Adam, 2005, p. 147). The arch is a double coursed brick masonry arch. Consequently, it can be easily understood from Figure 13: The Edifices in Multi-Layered Area 1. After the remaining part that the profile of the arch is a (Etyemez, 2011, s. 144) round arch. That is, the size of the brick units, the The remains of the medrese building can be seen as brick masonry, the profile and the double course of a partial brick masonry and a partial rubble stone the arch show traces of an earlier period dated back masonry wall adjacent to the west wall of the tomb. to Roman or Byzantine for the structure. 6

Moreover, the rubble stone masonry wall which area there are about sixteen Ottoman traditional is adjacent to the west wall of the tomb is built with residential buildings. Finally, from the Early limestone rubbles. The courses of the wall can be Republican period there is the railway which is an observed but there is not a regular bonding. There important urban element for Amasya. The railway are pieces of brick among the rubble stones. construction was started in 1924 and the railway Additionally, the foundation of the tomb building road sits on the hypothetical ancient road which can be seen under the east facade of the building. links Amasya to Samsun. During the construction The rubble stone masonry foundation of seems if it period, important archaeological and historical is also an earlier remain belonging to Byzantine edifices were destroyed. Period. In this area, the rock tombs and Kızlar Sarayı are known that they were continued to be used 4.2. Multi-Layered Area 2 during the Seljuk and Ottoman Periods after their earlier periods. The multi-layeredness of these The second area is in the north side of the edifices are discussed by examining used Yeşilırmak River and in the south foothills of the construction techniques and materials. Harşena Mountain. The area is located in the Hatuniye District which is the oldest settled area in Amasya. The boundaries of this site are defined by the hilly Harşena Mountain, the Yesilırmak River on the south, the Çukur (Hatuniye) Hamam on the west and the ridge of the Harşena Mountain on the east.

Figure 15: The Multi-layered Area 2

The area is settled continuously since the early ages onwards, so that the urban tissue has always been dense in the area. Kızlar Sarayı, the Rock Tombs and a remain of a Pontus city wall are the physical edifices from Pontus Kingdom Period. After the Pontus Kingdom, the area was inhibited by the Roman Empire. Only the remain of the city walls among the residential units and the lower levels of Figure 16: The Edifices in Multi-Layered Area 2. After the Alçak Bridge as arches exist from the Roman (Etyemez, 2011, s. 116) period. Subsequent to the Romans, the Byzantine period conquered the area but the physical evidences As it is mentioned above, Kızlar Sarayı, the of Byzantines cannot be seen in the area. After the Rock Tombs and the remains of Pontus city wall are Byzantine Period the area was settled by the Seljuks the physical evidences of Pontus Kingdom Period in and Principalities. Hatuniye Hamamı, Büyük and Amasya. The rock tombs of the rulers of the Pontus Küçük Hamam on the area of Kızlar Sarayı are the Kingdom were constructed to devote to Gods. edifices from the Seljuk Period. Then, from the Although there are about 23 Rock Tombs in the city Ottoman Period there is the Hatuniye Complex and around the city, the most known rock tombs are consisting of İmaret, Mosque, School and Fountain the 5 rock tombs on the Harşena Mountain. These nearby the Hatuniye Hamamı. Additionally, the five tombs are carved in the limestone rocks of the stone piers which are for raising the level of Alçak south side of the Harşena Mountain. Bridge are also from this period. Moreover, in the

Figure 18: Kızlar Sarayı Area

Furthermore, the other edifices in this area the Pontus Kingdom Period’s walls constructed for the Kızlar Sarayı area. These walls are dry walls constructed with isodomic courses out of large rectangular cut limestones with rustication (embossment) (Adam, 2005, p. 51) on the lower levels. On the upper layers of this wall, the latter period’s evidences can be perceived. On the upper levels, the dimensions of the stone units get smaller and the stone pieces become rough-cut stones. The construction technique changes as the stone masonry walls constructed with mortar. The brick pieces can also be detected. Hence, it can be stated

Figure 17: (upper) Rock Tombs (author 2009), (lower) that these upper parts of these walls are the edifices Plan of the Rock Tomb (Özdemir C. , n.d., s. 94) belong to latter periods. It is known that in the Ottoman Period, the walls were constructed with The name of the Rock Tombs and the owner window openings which can still be observed of the tombs are not known. The Rock tombs are whereas the upper parts of the wall are demolished reached through a stair with stone steps. The front (Özdemir C. , n.d.). The different construction facades are on a high podium with few steps techniques and the materials of different periods (krepis). The rectangular front entrance spaces reflect the accumulation of the successive periods’ (vestibula) (about 13 x3,5m) are bounded with walls edifices and the multi-layeredness can easily be on the right and left and a pediment above. Also, the noticed at first glance in this area. height of the front courtyards is about 8,5m. On the front facades, there is an opening about 285x190cm. The tomb rooms are higher than the courtyard and 4.3. Multi-Layered Area 3 about 4,20x5,10m. The ceilings are flat but the floors are about 60cm below than the door openings. The third area is in the south side of the Yeşilırmak Additionally, there are one more sunken rectangular River in the Hacı İlyas District. The area is bordered prism place in the middle of the tomb room with the with Yeşilırmak River on the north and Mustafa dimensions 250x340x200x330cm. The dead bodies Kemal Paşa Street on the south. Gani and Saray are are put in this sunken place with a stone pillow under the other smaller size streets defining the east and their head (Özdemir C. , n.d., pp. 89-91). west borders of the area. It is settled on a flat land composed of alluvial deposits transferred by the It is understood from the remains of plaster layers Yeşilırmak River. about 1,5cm that the inner walls of the Rock Tombs were plastered. The plaster has 3 layers. The first is a lime based plaster mixed with sand, the second layer is lime and the last has a red coloured layer. This red coloured layer give clues about the usage of these tombs during Seljuk and Ottoman Period. Because this red colored plaster can be seen from other Seljuk and Ottoman Period buildings.

Figure 19: The Multi-layered Area 3 8

The third area is in the middle of the important 346). The buildings were constructed with the historical routes passing through the north and south yellowish limestone (küfeki) masonry with very edges of the site on the north side of the river. narrow mortar which cannot be observed. The Additionally, as it is known that, the river’s north interesting stone edifices, which does not resemble side where is the foothills of Harşena Mountain was to the main building materials of the mosque, bring the main settlement area of the city. However, when questions into the mind. There are large stone the city needed to develop, the settlement area masonry edifices on the ground level of the mosque enlarged and jumped over the river towards the outside of the mihrab wall. These stone ruins, which south. This situation brought the necessity of the can be seen on the figures above and below, have bridges. The first known bridge is the Alçak Bridge much bigger sizes and lighter colour. They seem like from the Pontus Kingdom Period and the second is belonging to the wall of an earlier period building the Magdenus Bridge from Byzantine Period. This due to their position which can provide a stiff Magdenus Bridge was exactly the link which foundation for the mosque. When the connected the south settled area to the area where abovementioned Goddess Temple and the roman the selected third area is. Unfortunately, there is not bath of Roman Period and these interesting physical any physical remains of this bridge, but the name of remains are melt in the same pot, the historical the contemporary bridge “Maydanoz” still has the multi-layeredness of this area can be traced. same phonetic.

Figure 21: The ruins of an earlier building around the mihrab wall of Sultan Bayezid Mosque.

5. CONCLUSION

Historic towns are the complex organisms that have been generated by developments, alterations Figure 20: The Edifices in Multi-Layered Area 3. and endurances in urban form through a continuous inhibition process. This continuous inhibition Furtherly, it is also known that this area hosted process creates a significant character of historical a Goddess Temple and a roman bath in the Roman multi-layeredness by superimposition of former and Period. These complex buildings are thought to be latter physical remains. These physical remains demolished due to the destructive earthquakes. belonging to different periods create a new urban Because, it is also known that, this area was used as integrity by reflecting and evidencing the mutli- an open-air worshipping place (musalla) during the layered character of the current historic settlements. Seljuk and Principalities Periods. The holiness of These physical evidences of different periods can this area was continued during the Ottoman Period. only be conceived by examining their architectural Sultan Bayezid Complex was constructed in 1485 features such as construction techniques and during the reign of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II. materials. Therefore, to the purpose of the study the Today, only this complex exists and it conserves its construction technique and materials of the physical integrity with its mosque, imaret and medrese. edifices in Amasya are examined in order to Additionally, in the courtyard of the complex area, understand and propound the historical multi- there are tombs buildings belonging to important layeredness of the historic city Amasya. To personages from Ottoman Period. conclude, different stratified areas are traced and discovered by means of the construction technique The construction technique and the materials and materials of the physical remains by regarding used in the Sultan Bayezid Complex show the them as the identity areas of historical mutli- classical Ottoman building features (Urak, 1994, p. layeredness.

REFERENCES 17. Tuzcu, A. (2007). İlk Çağlardan Cumhuriyete Seyahatnamelerde Amasya. Amasya: Amasya 1. Özdemir, C. (Ed.). (2007). Amasya Kültür Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları. Envanteri. Amasya: Amasya Valiliği Kültür 18. Urak, G. (1994). Amasya’nın Türk Devri Şehir Yayınları. Dokusu ve Yapılarının Analizi ve Değerlendirilmesi. 2. Özdemir, C. (2007). Amasya Merkez Harşena Ankara: Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Graduate Kalesi 2007 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı Sonuçları. School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department 3. Özdemir, C. (n.d.). Amasya Kalesi ve Kral of Architecture, Gazi University. Kaya Mezarları. Amasya. 19. Yücel, E. (1970). Amasya. Türkiye Turing ve 4. Özdemir, E. (Ed.). (2003). The Mysterious City Otomobil Kurumu Belleteni, 26(305), 9-14. of Crown. Amasya: Amasya Valiliği. 20. Yaşar, H. H. (2007). Amasya Tarihi Abdi-zade 5. Adam, J. P. (2005). Roman Building: Materials Hüseyin Hüsameddin Efendi. (M. A. Aydın, Ed.) and Techniques. London: Routledge. Amasya: Amasya Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları. 6. Amasya. (1981). In Yurt Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 1, p. 411). İstanbul: Anadolu Yayıncılık. 7. Amasya Valiliği. (1999). Retrieved 12 09,

2018, from Yeşilırmak Havzası Kalkınma Birliği: http://www.yesilirmak.org.tr 8. Bektas, O. Ç. (2001). Successive extensional tectonic regimes during the Mesozoic as evidenced by neptunian dykes in the Pontide magmatic arc, Northeast Turkey. International Geology Review, 43(9), 840-849. 9. Bilgin, A. G. (1996). Urban Archaeology: As the Basis for the Studies on the Future of the Town Case Study, A Case Study: Bergama. Ankara: Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture- Restoration, Middle East Technical University. 10. Demirçay, A. (1954). Resimli Amasya Tarih, Coğrafya Salname - Kılavuz ve Kazalar. Ankara: Güney Matbaacılık ve Gazetecilik. 11. Etyemez, L. (2011). Assessing the Integration of Historical Stratification with the Current Context in Multı-Layered Towns. Case Study: Amasya. Ankara: Unpublished master’s thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical University. 12. Gabriel, A. (1934). Monuments turcs d'Anatolie, Ouvrage publié sous les auspices du Ministère turc de l'instruction publique, Amasya- Tokat-Sivas (Vol. 2). Paris: E. de Boccard. 13. Kuban, D. (1970). Amasya ve Sivas. Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu Belleteni, 26(305), 2- 8. 14. Kuzucular, K. (1994). Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi. İstanbul: Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture- Restoration, İstanbul Technical University. 15. Menç, H. (2007). Fotoğraflarla Geçmişte Amasya 1850-1950. Amasya: Amasya Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları. 16. Şahin, S. (n.d.). Fotoğraflarla Amasya. Amasya: Amasya Valiliği Kültür Yayınları.