Journals / JENAS Journal of Environmental and Natural Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Public Bath Landscapes and Urban Water Practices: From Central Spa Settlements to Embedded Hammam Structures

Kamusal Yıkanma Peyzajları ve Kentsel Su Pratikleri: Merkezî Spa Yerleşmelerinden Kente Gömülü Hamam Yapılarına

Aylin Şentürk(İSTANBUL TİCARET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9501-9174
Pages
1–15
Publication Date
2026-03-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this respect, bathing traditions may also be understood as urban water practices that shape environmental relationships between built form, resource use, and everyday health-oriented routines.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The inscription of the Great Spa Towns of Europe on the UNESCO World Heritage List represents a settlement-based model of bathing heritage in which thermal waters, architectural ensembles, landscape design, and leisure practices are spatially concentrated within holistic urban formations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While European spa towns function as planned cultural landscapes structured around health-oriented leisure practices and spatial centralization, hammams in Ottoman cities exist as distributed and embedded urban structures, integrated into everyday life through neighborhoods, külliye complexes, and waqf-based systems.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this respect, bathing traditions may also be understood as urban water practices that shape environmental relationships between built form, resource use, and everyday health-oriented routines.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kentsel su pratikleri · Banyo peyzajı · Hamam mirası

Abstract

The inscription of the Great Spa Towns of Europe on the UNESCO World Heritage List represents a settlement-based model of bathing heritage in which thermal waters, architectural ensembles, landscape design, and leisure practices are spatially concentrated within holistic urban formations. Although this framework is clearly limited to a geographically and culturally European context, it nevertheless offers a valuable point of reference for comparative discussions on bathing cultures and heritage interpretation. From this perspective, bathing traditions may also be interpreted as urban water practices that shape the environmental relationship between built form, resource use, and everyday health routines. This article examines the spatial and cultural logics of European spa settlements and hammams in the Ottoman/Turkish context through a comparative perspective, without aiming to establish direct equivalence within the same heritage category. The study argues that these two traditions fundamentally differ in the ways they organize bathing practices within the urban environment. While European spa towns function as planned cultural landscapes structured around health-oriented leisure practices and spatial centralization, hammams in Ottoman cities exist as distributed and embedded urban structures, integrated into everyday life through neighborhoods, külliye complexes, and waqf-based systems. Drawing on morphological analysis, historical mapping, and a critical reading of UNESCO nomination frameworks, the study focuses on selected spa towns in Europe and hammam examples in Istanbul. The comparison reveals differences in spatial organization, architectural typology, social accessibility, and cultural meaning. By making these distinct spatial models visible, the article contributes to discussions on bathing heritage and cultural landscapes, emphasizing the importance of developing more plural and context-sensitive interpretative frameworks in comparative heritage studies that move beyond settlement-based approaches. In this respect, bathing traditions may also be understood as urban water practices that shape environmental relationships between built form, resource use, and everyday health-oriented routines.

Özet

Great Spa Towns of Europe’un UNESCO Dünya Mirası Listesi’ne dahil edilmesi, termal suların, mimari toplulukların, peyzaj tasarımının ve boş zaman pratiklerinin mekânsal olarak bütüncül kentsel oluşumlar içinde yoğunlaştığı yerleşme temelli bir banyo mirası modelini temsil etmektedir. Bu çerçevenin açıkça Avrupa’ya özgü coğrafi ve kültürel bir bağlamla sınırlı olmasına rağmen, banyo kültürleri ve miras yorumlamasına ilişkin karşılaştırmalı tartışmalar için değerli bir referans noktası sunduğu görülmektedir. Bu makale, Avrupa spa yerleşmeleri ile Osmanlı/Türkiye bağlamındaki hamamların mekânsal ve kültürel mantıklarını, aynı miras kategorisi içinde doğrudan eşdeğerlik kurma amacı taşımaksızın karşılaştırmalı bir perspektifle incelemektedir. Çalışma, bu iki geleneğin kentsel mekânda banyo pratiklerini örgütleme biçimlerinin temelde farklı olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Avrupa spa kentleri, sağlık odaklı boş zaman pratikleri ve mekânsal merkezîleşme etrafında yapılandırılmış planlı kültürel peyzajlar olarak işlev görürken; Osmanlı kentlerindeki hamamlar, mahalleler, külliyeler ve vakıf temelli sistemler aracılığıyla gündelik yaşama entegre olmuş, dağıtık ve kente gömülü kentsel yapılar olarak varlık göstermektedir. Morfolojik analiz, tarihsel haritalama ve UNESCO adaylık çerçevelerinin eleştirel okunmasına dayanan bu çalışma, Avrupa’daki seçilmiş spa kentleri ile İstanbul hamam örneklerine odaklanmaktadır. Yapılan karşılaştırma; mekânsal organizasyon, mimari tipoloji, sosyal erişilebilirlik ve kültürel anlam açısından farklılıkları ortaya koymaktadır. Bu farklı mekânsal modelleri görünür kılarak makale, banyo mirası ve kültürel peyzaj tartışmalarına katkı sunmakta; karşılaştırmalı miras çalışmalarının yerleşme temelli yaklaşımların ötesine geçerek daha çoğul ve bağlama duyarlı yorumlayıcı çerçeveler geliştirmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, banyo gelenekleri, yapılı form, kaynak kullanımı ve günlük sağlık odaklı rutinler arasındaki çevresel ilişkileri şekillendiren kentsel su uygulamaları olarak da ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şentürk, A. (2026). Public Bath Landscapes and Urban Water Practices: From Central Spa Settlements to Embedded Hammam Structures. JENAS Journal of Environmental and Natural Studies, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.53472/jenas.1897906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2007). Pluralising pasts: Heritage, identity and place in multicultural societies. Pluto Press.
  2. Choay, F. (2001). The invention of the historic monument. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: A study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers.
  4. Corbin, A. (1986). The foul and the fragrant: Odor and the French social imagination. Harvard University Press.
  5. Çelik, Z. (1993). The remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the nineteenth century. University of California Press.
  6. Faroqhi, S. (2009). Artisans of empire: Crafts and craftspeople under the Ottomans. I.B. Tauris.
  7. Goodwin, G. (1971). A history of Ottoman architecture. Thames & Hudson.
  8. Jones, M. (2007). The European Landscape Convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research, 32(5), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552753
  9. Kropf, K. (2009). Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), 105–120.
  10. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Mackaman, D. (2009). Leisure settings: Bourgeois culture, medicine, and the spa in modern France. University of Chicago Press.
  12. Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., & Tricaud, P. M. (2009). World heritage cultural landscapes: A handbook for conservation and management. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
  13. Necipoğlu, G. (2005). The age of Sinan: Architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press.
  14. Pickvance, C. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), 7–28.
  15. Rössler, M. (2006). World heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape Research, 31(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390601004210
  16. Singer, A. (2002). Constructing Ottoman beneficence: An imperial soup kitchen in Jerusalem. SUNY Press.
  17. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.
  18. Taylor, K., & Lennon, J. (2012). Managing cultural landscapes. Routledge.
  19. Tiesdell, S., Oc, T., & Heath, T. (1996). Revitalizing historic urban quarters. Routledge.
  20. UNESCO. (2021). Great Spa Towns of Europe nomination dossier. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
  21. Waterton, E., & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 4–15.
  22. Weisz, G. (2001). Spas and the nineteenth-century health resort: Seaside and mountain spa towns. Social History of Medicine, 14(1), 47–68.
  23. Whitehand, J. W. R. (2001). British urban morphology: The Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103–109.
  24. Yegül, F. (2010). Baths and bathing in classical antiquity. MIT Press.