Journals / Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

A Type of Rural Houses or a Cultural Heritage That Tending to Disappear: Beehive Houses of Suruç

Yok Olmaya Yüz Tutmuş Bir Kırsal Mesken Tipi veya Kültürel Miras: Suruç Kümbet Evleri

Pages
881–916
Publication Date
2012-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Recent survived examples of these houses can be seen in Kara, Yatırtepe and Boztepe villages

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Beehive houses of Suruç are completely built from sun dried mudbrick.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Due to some environmental and socio-economic problems have caused migration from countryside to cities during the last 30 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Recent survived examples of these houses can be seen in Kara, Yatırtepe and Boztepe villages
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kümbet evler · Suruç · Yerleşme coğrafyası

Abstract

Beehive houses of Suruç are completely built from sun dried mudbrick. Traditionally, rural house of Suruç plain is beehive houses. It has known that these houses have been used for centuries. These houses rooms have square plan and each room have conical roof. In terms of their own characteristic, Suruç beehive houses different from other conical or dome roofed houses such as beehive house of Harran, Trullo and Clochán. Basically there are four usage spaces; living rooms, designs of granaries, barn or folds and haylofts which are respectively arranged from south to north. These usage spaces are connected to each other with eyvans or gates without door. As requirement of rural life, these houses have some outbuildings such as tendur (tandoor), kadin (hayloft), gom (open folder), ça’l, lod and seki (terrace). Due to some environmental and socio-economic problems have caused migration from countryside to cities during the last 30 years. As a result of this, the Suruç beehive houses have either disused or abandoned completely. In addition, especially in last 30 years, the villagers in the area have begun to prefer building the reinforced concrete houses. This has led some of the Suruç beehive houses either to be destroyed or abandoned. Recent survived examples of these houses can be seen in Kara, Yatırtepe and Boztepe villages

Özet

Suruç Kümbet evleri, Suruç Ovası ve yakın çevresinde görülen, yüzyıllar boyunca kullanılan bir kırsal mesken tipidir. Tamamen güneşte kurutulmuş kerpiçlerden inşa edilen bu evlerin odaları kare planlı olup, konik bir çatıya sahiptir. Kendisine has özellikleriyle Harran, Trullo, Clochán gibi konik kubbeli evlerden ayrılmaktadır. Bu meskenlerin kullanım alanlarını oluşturan oturma alanları, tahıl depoları, ahır-ağıl ve samanlık, güneyden kuzeye sırasıyla dizilmiş ve odalar arasındaki geçişler eyvanlarla sağlanmıştır. Kırsal yaşamın bir gereği olarak bu meskenlerin tandır (tendur), samanlık (kadin), kapalı ve açık ağıl (gom), ça’l, lod ve seki gibi bazı eklentileri bulunmaktadır. Son 30 yılda yaşanan bir takım doğal ve sosyo-ekonomik sorunlar nedeniyle, köylerden şehirlere göç hızlanmış ve bu evler terk edilmiştir. Ayrıca köylerde ikamet edenlerin betonarme yapıları tercih etmeye başlaması, bu evlerin kullanılmamasına ve zamanla tahrip olarak yok olmalarına neden olmuştur. Günümüzde Suruç kümbet evlerinin ayakta kalan son örneklerini ancak Kara, Yatırtepe ve Boztepe köylerinde görmek mümkündür

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahinalp, M. S. (2012). A Type of Rural Houses or a Cultural Heritage That Tending to Disappear: Beehive Houses of Suruç. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 881–916. https://ajindex.com/articles/70421

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Akkermans P. M. M. G., Verhoeven M., “The Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 99, No. 1, ss. 5-32, Jan. 1995.
  2. Allen E., Stone Shelters, The MIT Press, Masechussetts, 1969, 3rd printing 1974.
  3. Atay M.Ç., Oral M.Y., Kılıç S. E., Aydoğan M., Efe M., Ayhan İ., Mumcularda Kırsal Turizm Modeli, T.C. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, İzmir, 2007.
  4. Bakhshi A., Bozorgnia, Y., Ghannad, M.A., Khosravifar, A., Eshkiki, S.E., Rahimzadeh R., F., Behbahani T., A. “Seismic Vulnerability Of Traditional Houses in Iran", 1st Int. Conf. on Seismic Adobe Structures, Lima, Peru 2005.
  5. Chel A., Tiwari G. N., Singh H. N., “A Modified Model For Estimation Of Daylight Factor For Skylight İntegrated With Dome Roof Structure Of Mud-House İn New Delhi (India)”, Applied Energy 87, ss.3037–3050, 2010.
  6. Denker B. T., Yerleşme Coğrafyası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yay., İstanbul 1977.
  7. Doğanay H., Türkiye Beşeri Coğrafyası, Gazi Büro Kitabevi, Ankara 1994.
  8. Duffinand R. J., Knowles G., “Temperature Control Of Buildings By Adobe Wall Design” Solar Energy, Volume 27, Issue 3, ss. 241-249, 1981.
  9. Eshkiki S.E. M., Khosravifar A., Ghannad M.A., Bakhshi A., Behbahani A.A. T., Bozorgnia Y., “Structural Typology of Traditional Houses in Iran Based on Their Seismic Behavior”, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, April 18-22 2006,
  10. San Francisco, California, USA. Fahimeh F., Mugendi M., “Sustainable Solutions for Cooling Systems in Residential Buildings Case Study in the Western Cape Province, South Africa”, 4 th International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science,Transitions to Sustainability 2010,
  11. Auckland. Friesem D., Boaretto E., Eliyahu-Behar A., Shahack-Gross R., “Degradation Of Mud Brick Houses In An Arid Environment: A Geoarchaeological Model” Journal of Archaeological Science 38, ss. 1135-1147, 2011.
  12. Hadavand M., Yaghoubi M., “Thermal Behavior Of Curved Roof Buildings Exposed To Solar Radiation And Wind Flow For Various Orientations”, Applied Energy 85, ss.663– 679, 2008.
  13. Hardy P., Hole A., Pozzan O., Puglia & Basilicata, Lonely Planet Publications, 2008.
  14. Holland J., Burian M., Dixey L., “Tourism in Poor Rural Areas”, PPT Working Paper No. 12, ss. 1-38, 2003.
  15. Italy, The Magazin for Lovers of All Things IItalian, Issue 10, Aug-Sep 2003.
  16. Kamp K. A. “Affluence and Image: Ethnoarchaeology in a Syrian Village”, Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp