Researcher: Sağlam, Hasan Sercan
Loading...
Name Variants
Sağlam, Hasan Sercan
Email Address
Birth Date
5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Publication Metadata only A reevaluation for the Genoese period of the Galata Tower(Suna ve İnan Kıraç Vakfı Kültür ve Sanat İşletmesi, 2020) N/A; Sağlam, Hasan Sercan; Researcher; Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) / Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi (ANAMED); N/A; N/AThe Galata Tower has been witness to many historical events and has gone through multiple architectural phases over the course of its long life. Its Genoese origins began to receive scholarly attention particularly in the late eighteenth century and especially during the nineteenth century. In the meantime, a general consensus was reached about the history and architecture of the tower's Genoese period. However, this consensus was actually based on a few primary sources without any comprehensive approaches nor in-depth investigation. The tower's erroneous name, "Tower of Christ" (Christea Turris), during its Genoese period is perhaps the most widespread assumption in the secondary literature. A first construction by Anastasios I and a heightening around 1445/1446 are further related misconceptions. Despite the popularity of Galata as a research topic, these misconceptions have become anonymous and continuously repeated without being questioned. Moreover, slightly different arguments for the tower were put forward. In particular, when compared to later periods of the monument, the former name of the tower, its alleged Byzantine past, and especially the Genoese architectural identity of the present structure remain rather ambiguous in the light of all the arguments in the literature. For these reasons, this article presents a fundamental reevaluation for the Genoese period of the Galata Tower through virtually all of the primary sources and a small architectural survey. This article shows that there is no solid evidence of the supposed Byzantine period of the tower; that it was named as the "Tower of Holy Cross" (Turris Sancte Crucis) by the Genoese who built it, and its first structural alteration was probably executed by the Ottomans around 1453. / Galata Kulesi’nin uzun yaşamı, birçok tarihî olaya ve mimari evreye tanıklık etmiştir. Bu doğrultuda kuleye yönelik bilimsel araştırmalar on sekizinci yüzyılın sonunda ve özellikle on dokuzuncu yüzyılda yoğunlaşmış, yapının Ceneviz dönemi ve öncesine ilişkin başlıca argümanlar bu süreçte şekillenmiştir. Lakin başvurulan sınırlı sayıdaki birincil kaynak, kapsamlı bir bakış açısıyla ele alınmamış, bazı noktalar üstünkörü yorumlanmıştır. Bunlar arasında belki de en yaygın olanı, kulenin Ceneviz dönemindeki adının ikincil kaynaklarca yanlış bir şekilde “İsa Kulesi” (Christea Turris) zannedilmesidir. İlk inşasının I. Anastasios tarafından yapılması ve Ceneviz döneminde 1445–1446 civarında yükseltilmesi ise diğer yanılgılardır. Tüm bu görüşler, Galata’nın artık alışılmış akademik popülerliğine karşın pek sorgulanmamış ve zamanla anonimleşerek kuleye dair temel bilgilere dönüşmüştür. Bu esnada farklı birincil kaynaklar irdelenerek başka iddialar da öne sürülmüş ve sonuç olarak kuleye yönelik bilgilerde birtakım ikilikler ortaya çıkmıştır. Öyle ki, Galata Kulesi’nin Ceneviz öncesi dönemi, Ceneviz dönemindeki adı ve bunların yanında özellikle de mevcut yapının bu dönemden geriye kaldığı düşünülen kısmı, literatürdeki tüm argümanların ışığında ve anıtın daha sonraki dönemlerine kıyasla bir hayli muğlaktır. Dolayısıyla bu makale, Galata Kulesi’nin Ceneviz döneminin, tarihî ve mimari açılardan temel düzeyde bir yeniden değerlendirmesidir. Kayda değer bulgularsa kulenin Bizans dönemine uzanan bir geçmişi olduğuna dair ortada somut hiçbir verinin bulunmadığı; inşa edildiği Ceneviz dönemindeki isminin yalnızca “Kutsal Haç Kulesi” (Turris Sancte Crucis) olduğu ve ilk yapısal değişikliğini de Osmanlılar tarafından 1453 dolaylarında geçirdiğine işaret etmektedir.Publication Metadata only Transformation and continuity of sacred places: the case of Galata (Istanbul)(Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2020) N/A; Sağlam, Hasan Sercan; Researcher; Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) / Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi (ANAMED); N/A; N/AIn historical city centers that are constantly inhabited for centuries, it is a predictable phenomenon that sacred places of different periods often share the same location. This is the case notonly for the Historical Peninsula of Istanbul but also Galata, which is the former capital's another ancient district opposite the Golden Horn. Accordingly, Arap Mosque is perhaps the mostrenowned example to this issue that it shares the same location with two former churches fromthe Byzantine and Genoese periods. While similar origins of other monuments in Galata likeYeni Mosque have also been discussed by scholars, those cases lacked elaboration from a morecomprehensive urban perspective. Following a historical research methodology for specific urban aims, it was seen that spatial connections between the shrines of Galata from its Byzantine,Genoese and Ottoman periods are even stronger on the same plots, which better display a spatialcontinuity within a historical urban layout for centuries. Moreover, it can be seen that even ifa sacred place had a new function. / Yüzyıllardan beri iskan gören tarihi kent merkezlerinde, farklı dönemlere ait kutsal mekanların konum olarak üst üste çakışması, beklenen bir olasılıktır. Bu durum eski başkent İstanbul'un yalnızca Tarihi Yarımada bölgesi için değil, Haliç'in karşısındaki antik bir mahallesi olan Galata için de geçerlidir. Bu bağlamda Arap Camii muhtemelen en bilinen örnek olup Bizans ve Ceneviz dönemlerinden iki eski kiliseyle aynı konumu paylaşmaktadır. Yine benzer bir kökene sahip Yeni Camii gibi Galata'daki birkaç anıt, araştırmacılar tarafından halihazırda tartışılmış olmasına karşın şehircilik biliminin perspektifinden detaylandırılmamıştır. Dolayısıyla, tarih araştırma metodolojisinin şehircilik ilgisindeki spesifik amaçlara yönelik uygulanmasıyla Bizans, Ceneviz ve Osmanlı dönemlerine ait Galata mabetleri arasındaki mekansal ilişkilerin aslında çok daha fazla olduğu görülmüştür. Bu örnekler, tarihi yerleşimde yüzyıllardır süregelmiş mekansal devamlılığı oldukça güçlü bir şekilde ortaya koymaktadır. Öte yandan, kutsal bir mekan zamanla başka bir fonksiyonel kimlik kazansa dahi bazı izlerin hala asıl kökeni işaret ettiği, dolayısıyla antik yerleşimin çok katmanlılığını yine vurguladığı belirlenmiştir.Publication Metadata only The architectural history and spatial transformation of Panagia (Koimesis Theotokou) and Agios Panteleimon Churches on Cunda Island of Ayvalık(Mehmet Dursun Erdem, 2021) N/A; Sağlam, Hasan Sercan; Researcher; Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) / Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi (ANAMED); N/A; N/AAyvalık in the northwestern coast of Turkey is renowned with its characteristic architectural heritage from the 19th-20th centuries. While some of its landmarks were recently restored and received new functions, some were lost in time due to natural and man-made damages. Correspondingly, this article focuses on two Greek Orthodox churches on Cunda / Alibey Island in Ayvalık that were demolished in the mid-20th century, namely Panagia and Agios Panteleimon. The literature that mostly relies on scant secondary sources and old photographs has very limited information about their long durée from an urban and architectural perspective. Meanwhile, the plots of both churches appear as abandoned ruin sites within the urban fabric of Cunda today. In this article, the architectural history of the aforementioned buildings were substantially elaborated through a group of late 19th century archival documents with plans and drawings that were studied for the first time. In addition, published primary sources were considered and discussed. Then, their current preservation status were demonstrated after the most recent Cunda conservation master plan and listing registries. Major outcomes have displayed that the timeline as well as architecture of Panagia and Agios Panteleimon significantly differ from what has been previously put forth by the literature. There were successive alterations with intriguing irregularities until their final appearances by the end of the 19th century. Furthermore, their plots were almost completely omitted from the conservation point of view and are under risk, though a multilayered architectural heritage is evident beneath the high debris and vegetation. Structured Abstract: The town of Ayvalık in the Balıkesir Province of Turkey has numerous examples of the traditional architecture from the 19th-20th centuries that approximately 2000 of them were listed as monument by the national legislation. It was predominantly inhabited by ethnic Greeks during the Ottoman Empire period but had a full demographical change due to the 1923 population exchange between Turkey and Greece. This incident also caused impact on the built environment, as a significant portion of the architectural heritage was not used again and neglected. After constant damages in time, the demolished landmarks naturally caught less scholarly attention than the extant ones. Two of them were the churches of Panagia (Koimesis Theotokou) and Agios Panteleimon on Cunda / Alibey Island (formerly Yunda / Moschonisi) of Ayvalık, which were razed to the ground in the mid-20th century. The literature hardly demonstrated the multifaceted architectural history and spatial transformation of both churches. In addition, their current situation was not handled from the conservation point of view. Thus, the archaeological value of their plots as well as the architectural heritage itself were omitted. This article aims to elaborate the rather undiscovered urban and architectural aspects of both churches and to demonstrate a new chronology for them in the 19th century. The study also discusses their current preservation status for potential solutions in future. Speaking generally, Panagia and Agios Panteleimon were almost completely omitted by the scientific literature about Ayvalık and Cunda Island. Available information primarily came from two nonacademic books written by Sitsa Karaiskaki and Ali Onay, who simply witnessed the churches by the 1920s and mentioned an incoherent secondary narrative about the architectural history of Panagia in particular. They were most recently taken into account by the technical study of Dimitros E. Psarros, who generously quoted them and also added few superficial interpretations about the churches after distant old photographs. The works of Eustratios I. Drakos as a witness from the 19th century were considered only with a limited extent due to an unknown reason. The aforesaid narrative, actually an urban myth derived from the bell of Panagia substantially falsified its own architectural history. Furthermore, Agios Panteleimon was basically attributed to the architect Emmanuel Kounas due to stylistic similarities and its ultimate reconstruction was excluded. Conclusions eventually relied on indirect accounts derived from Karaiskaki and Onay, few old photographs and brief assumptions, which appear as fundamental facts about the monuments today. On the other hand, this article displays successive reconstructions and alterations of both churches, which provided their final known appearance, though not mentioned in the literature. It includes the urban and architectural extent of those works for a detailed spatial chronology in the late 19th century. The study considers archival documents and critically discusses available primary sources. It also tackles present conservation issues for the first time with a specific architectural focus on Panagia and Agios Panteleimon. For the research background of this article, the main primary sources that were consulted can be listed as four sets of documents from the Ottoman Archives (BOA) with precise descriptions, plans and drawings dated 1882-1896; official annals (Salname) from 1884-1903; three volumes about Cunda Island by Eustratios I. Drakos from 1888-1895; the bell of Panagia dated 1863 in the Bergama Archaeology Museum; an audit report dated 1913 about the churches of Cunda; and archival photographs from the first half of the 20th century. Modern literature as well as later narratives were critically discussed after the primary sources. For contemporary conservation issues, official master plans and listing registries were taken into account. They were further supported by a small field survey in order to demonstrate the current situation in Cunda. The main limitations appeared as inaccessible parts due to vegetation and high debris that cover the ruins. It was seen that the architectural history of Panagia and Agios Panteleimon had crucial differences when compared to the existing literature that lacked archival sources. After a reassessment of the legendary foundation of Panagia on an empty area in 1863 by a Turk called "Ali Ağa," it was noticed that the church was present since the 18th century and the aforesaid tale was seemingly an urban myth, simply derived from the inscription of the Panagia's bell. 1863 was in fact the year when Panagia received its first belfry and the bell in question. Yet, it was completely reconstructed in 1883 but the old bell was continued to be used. Moreover, the ultimate reconstruction of Agios Panteleimon was happened not in 1882 as formerly stated but in 1896, with a neoclassical design by the master builder Onoufrios Kouvaras. Crucial architectural mismatches were detected between the official reconstruction plans and church buildings that appear on old photographs. The plots of Panagia and Agios Panteleimon evidently had a multilayered archaeological character due to repetitive reconstructions, which were not precisely superposed on previous foundations and were slightly shifted. As their final demolitions in 1954 were for obtaining building materials instead of a complete areal clearance, the ruins of multiple church foundations from different construction phases were presumably preserved under the high debris and vegetation there; also the annexes for priests, courtyard pavements, and especially the chapel and the holy spring of Panagia. Within the contexts of the construction law transgression and shifted foundations during later reconstructions, it can be said that Panagia and Agios Panteleimon have parallels with some cases from the nearby Lesbos. The preservation status of both churches have crucial deficiencies, as the most recent conservation master plan for Cunda dated 1994 completely ignored them and designated their plots as park and residence areas. They are under risk against treasure hunters and new urban development, as the settlement lacks a conservation master plan today. The plot of Agios Panteleimon is still unlisted and the one of Panagia was individually listed in 2020. After necessary conservation decisions, the ruins can be carefully unearthed and with the help of technological advances like digital surveys and virtual reconstructions, the plots might be converted into thematic modern archaeology museum sites. / Türkiye'nin kuzeybatı kıyı kesiminde bulunan Ayvalık, 19-20. yüzyıllara tarihlenen karakteristik mimari mirasıyla bilinmektedir. Anıtlarından bir kısmı yakın zamanda restore edilerek yeni işlevler kazanmış olsa da bazıları doğa ve insan kaynaklı düzenli tahribatlar nedeniyle zaman içerisinde kaybolmuştur. İlintili olarak bu makale, Ayvalık'a bağlı Cunda / Alibey Adası'ndaki iki eski Rum Ortodoks kilisesi olan ve 20. yüzyılın ortalarında yıktırılmış Panagia ve Agios Panteleimon'u ele almaktadır. Mevcut literatür muğlak ikincil kaynaklara ve de eski fotoğraflara dayandığı üzere bu kiliselerin uzun yaşamına dair kentsel ve mimari bağlamda oldukça sınırlı bilgiye sahiptir. Bu arada her iki yapının da arsası günümüz Cunda kent dokusu içerisinde terk edilmiş ve viran halde durmaktadır. Bahis konusu kiliselerin mimarlık tarihi, plan ve çizimler içeren ve ilk kez bu makalede etraflıca ele alınan geç 19. yüzyıl tarihli arşiv belgeleri yoluyla önemli ölçüde detaylandırılmıştır. Ayrıca yayımlanmış birincil kaynaklar da göz önüne alınarak tartışılmıştır. Daha sonra bu yapıların mevcut korunma durumu, en güncel Cunda koruma imar planı ve tescil kayıtları üzerinden ortaya konmuştur. Başlıca sonuçlar, Panagia ve Agios Panteleimon'un kronoloji ve mimarisinin daha önce literatür tarafından ortaya konulandan önemli ölçüde farklı olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu yapılar, 19. yüzyılın sonundaki nihai görünümlerine değin art arda ve şaşırtıcı düzensizlikler barındıran değişikliklere uğramıştır. Ayrıca arsaları koruma açısından neredeyse tamamen ihmal edilmiş durumda olup risk altındadır. Lakin yüksek moloz ve bitki örtüsünün altında çok katmanlı bir mimari mirasın bulunduğu aşikârdır.Publication Open Access Şile and its castle: historical topography and medieval architectural history(Istanbul Technical University (İTÜ) / İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ), 2021) Sağlam, Hasan Sercan; Researcher; Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) / Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi (ANAMED)Being a district of Istanbul, Şile is located towards the east of the northern end of the Bosporus. This small city lies next to the Black Sea and it forms the northeastern section of the provincial borders of Istanbul. Şile Castle is popularly known as “Genoese Castle” but some other sources date it to the Late Byzantine period, as a typical watchtower. Following a long period of neglect, it most recent-ly came into prominence with a restoration in 2015, which fully brought it back to the supposed original appearance. Although some assumptions were formerly made in order to describe the origins of Şile Castle, it was seen that its medieval architectural history was not elaborated despite the relevant information that were scattered around some significant primary sources as well as a number of secondary sources. Those works were not put together with the aim of exclusive objectives for Şile and its castle that the modern studies were also unaware of about which extant monument they mention of. Thus, a critical reading was done between relevant primary and secondary sources with a topographical and architectural point of view for Şile. The obtained information were chronologically considered for the topographical depiction, first construction, and usage of the castle for centuries. Major findings displayed that the origins of Şile Castle not only predate formerly supposed times but also differ than a simple watchtower in terms of initial function. Nearby castles also set an example regarding the usage of Şile Castle in later times.Publication Open Access An interdisciplinary experiment for the urban morphology of Galata (Istanbul) and its surroundings during the Late Antiquity and Middle Ages(Istanbul Technical University (İTÜ) / İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ), 2020) Sağlam, Hasan Sercan; Researcher; Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) / Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi (ANAMED)During its Byzantine times, Galata was the 13th region of Constantinople, once the illustrious imperial capital now called Istanbul. This part of modern Beyoğlu especially came to the forefront with its prosperous Genoese period, which lasted between 1267-1453. Although Galata had a significant urban and architectural development during that period, there are solid evidence and recent discoveries regarding the phenomenon of spatial continuity. In this regard, it was seen that the Genoese did not found Galata as a colonial settlement from scratch but in fact possessed a well urbanized Byzantine district. In order to display the urban layout of its previous centuries, Galata was formerly subjected to some mapping attempts but few of them were able to accurately detect spatial continuities as well as discontinuities between different historical periods of this neighborhood. Hence, those efforts remained rather inconclusive from an urban point of view. Main reasons behind this failure can be given as the lack of an interdisciplinary approach and proper knowledge of urban morphology. Therefore, this article aims to improve the aforementioned research within the context of discovering the ancient road and water system; and to set a wider spatial connection between the late antiquity and medieval periods of Galata in comparison with modern times. For this reason, primary sources and archaeological evidence were considered for exclusive urban objectives. In the end, related findings displayed that the urban layout of modern Galata and its surroundings not only have strong traces remained from ancient times but also had significant transformations.