Akdeniz Yaylalarında Transhümant Mekân Örüntülerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: Belgeler Işığında Antalya Türkiye ve Abruzzo İtalya

Year 2016, Issue: 19, 363 - 396, 01.06.2016

Kemal Reha Kavas

Abstract

Tarih boyunca elverişli iklim, arazi ve su kaynağının bulunmadığı coğrafyalarda yerleşik tarım kültürleri gelişememiş olduğundan hayvancılık temel geçim kaynağı olmuştur. Otlak alanlarının mevsimsel döngülere göre nitelik değiştirmesi de hayvanlarına besin arayan toplulukların mevsimsel hareketliliğini mecburiyet haline getirmiştir. Böylece göçerlik ve hayvancılık bir bütün halinde gelişmiştir. Göçerliğin Latin kökenli dillerdeki karşılığı “nomad” kelimesinin kökünün “hareketli çoban” anlamına gelmesi bu bütünleşmenin etimolojik yansımasıdır.

Comparative Analysis of the Transhumant Spatial Patterns in the Mediterranean Plateaus: Antalya Turkey and Abruzzo Italy in the Light of Documentary Evidence

Abstract

The Mediterranean basin, which has been the home of numerous major civilizations, involves local geographies where transhumant societies were active throughout history. The transhumant life patterns have appeared due to the characteristic geographical, climatic and cultural features of the coastal regions around the Mediterranean. These transhumant communities usually live around those regions with dramatic changes of altitude in the mountain ranges lying parallel to the coastline. Taking advantage of the topographical outlines and responding to the problems of vegetation and food, these societies have kept on changing their habitat according to the different seasons of the year. It can be observed that during the hot and humid summer months the transhumant communities move to the plateaus in the higher elevations where the weather is cool and vegetation is fresh and abundant enough for successful animal breeding. Whereas, during the winter they stay in lower altitudes closer to the coast. This vertical movement to the plateaus constitutes the fundamental characterisation of the life pattern called transhumance. During the winter, on the other hand, transhumant communities move down to the lower altitudes closer to the sea to take advantage of the warmer coastline. In their seasonal destinations the transhumant cultures may produce permanent dwellings, while elsewhere they may use temporary dwellings forms like tents or other types of lightweight structures. The type of these spatial configurations are determined by the specific environmental context. Around the different countries of the Mediterranean basin, transhumant cultures with long histories are observable. These societies may be analysed through a set of common features sharable through different regions of the Mediterranean. However, these cultures also differ according to their local customs, environmental context, social institutions and relations with neighbouring sedentary cultures and ruling authorities. This study analyses the spatial configurations and settlement patterns of two exemplary transhumant cultures of the Turkish and Italian Mediterranean around the provinces of Antalya and Abruzzo and identifies their common and differing features. The principal factor that differentiates transhumant cultures from other forms of life is the summer habitat on the high plateaus of the Mediterranean landscape. That is why in Turkish yaylacılık, is the word associated with transhumance. It signifies “a form of life dependent on the plateau” yayla . The plateau/yayla is a very special place in terms of environmental inputs and natural resources. Therefore, the real focus of this comparative study is comprised by the spatial patterns adapted to the plateaus. Meanwhile the spatial patterns of the winter habitat kışlak are mentioned very broadly. The comparative analysis indicates that the unique features of the two different case studies are constituted mainly by the spatial patterns of the plateaus yayla rather than those of the winter settlements kışlak . In its simplest definition, a “spatial pattern” is the juxtaposition of a local context, a spatial problem introduced by the local context and a cultural solution to the problem. This abstract definition of “pattern” applies to all cultures; however, its spatial embodiment is culturally specific. While the above-mentioned abstract definition becomes the underlying principle of commonalities, the local context poses different spatial solutions. Therefore, the case studies representing the Turkish and Italian Mediterranean contexts should be compared by considering their common features and culturally specific differences. As a result of the comparative analysis in the light of documentary evidence, the common features of the two transhumant traditions may be summarised as follows. Firstly, their spatial configurations are in perfect harmony with their environment. Their transhumant form of life required high capacity of organisation in difficult geographical circumstances. The organisation of the seasonal movement involving a great number of people and animals and the flexible and lightweight spatial configurations of this process, such as the tents, can be regarded as the common features. The fundamental difference between the two transhumant cultures originates from their differing relations with the sedentary cultures. The Turkish case exemplifies a historical tension between the transhumant culture and sedentary administrations. As a result of this tension, the transhumant communities were obliged to settle down, and transhumance has come to an end due to social and economic circumstances. Although the Italian case exemplifies a similar result, its historical process is quite different. Over a couple of centuries between the late Medieval and the final phases of the Early Modern period, due to mutual interests, there was cooperation between transhumance and sedentary authority. As a result of this historical cooperation, some transhumant spatial patterns were financed by the state. This underlying strategic planning and design has produced architecture of monumental character. As a result of this comparative analysis the spatial patterns of transhumance in the Turkish and Italian cases can be categorized according to their socioeconomic context. The spatial patterns of transhumance in the Turkish case can be analysed in two categories. The first spatial pattern is constituted by tents, which were temporary dwellings used during seasonal movement or in the plateaus. The second pattern is defined by the permanent dwellings in the plateaus. Both of these patterns can be interpreted as examples of vernacular architecture. The spatial patterns of transhumance in the Italian case can be analysed in three categories. The first spatial pattern is constituted by tents, which were temporary dwellings used during seasonal movements. The second pattern is defined by the modest domed and vaulted structures of masonry which were used temporarily by the shepherds. These two spatial patterns can be categorized as types of vernacular architecture. In contrast to the first two patterns, the third one is a monumental pattern. The third spatial pattern is the fortified village built in the plateaus. This pattern which is designed, financed and produced by the state authority has monumental features due to its planned settlement and churches of high art. The fortified mountaineer village is the most characteristic pattern representing the Italian case study. While the vernacular patterns are the consequences of an organic growth in a long time span, the monumental pattern is the result of a single and planned construction process. Another significant result of this comparative analysis is concerned with the distribution of temporary and permanent dwellings in the winter and summer habitats. The case study of Italy indicates that the fortified villages, which are the examples of permanent spatial pattern, is situated in the high plateaus. However, the dwellings used during seasonal movement and winter habitats are temporary. In contrast, the case study of Turkey demonstrates that in general the permanent dwellings are situated in the winter settlements and temporary dwellings, such as tents, are used in the high plateaus. All of the above-mentioned differences are due to cultural and geographic reasons. The common features of the selected case studies of the Mediterranean basin reinforce the idea of a common “Mediterranean” identity. In spite of spatial differences related with historical, cultural and geographical characteristics, transhumance and its spatial patterns define significant continuities across Mediterranean countries such as Turkey and Italy. The conclusions of this study also emphasise the necessity for enriching studies regarding transhumant cultures and their spatial configurations. The study also aims to develop consciousness about these unique cultures which are in the process of disappearing due to the changing environmental, social and administrative conditions. By comparing the architectural and spatial dimensions of these transhumant cultures, the study uncovers their characteristic strategies to sustain a habitat in harmony with the environment.

References

• Alexander 1979 C. Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building (1979).
• Atabeyli 1940 N. K. Atabeyli, “Teke (Antalya) Yörükleri Hakkında Notlar”, Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi IV, 1940, 213-224.
• Bakır 1990 İ. Bakır, “Toroslarda Göçebe Mimarisi”, Türk Halk Mimarisi Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı (1990) 17-30.
• Bakır 1995 İ. Bakır, Batı Toroslarda Göçerlerin Yerleşme ve Mekân Sorunlarının Çözümü Üzerine Bir Deneme (1995).
• Biondi v.d. 2008 L. Biondi – F. Celli – F. Merlonghi – E. Peretti Elio – G. Totani, “Introduction”, bk.
• G. Totani – L. Biondi– F. Celli – F. Merlonghi (ed.), Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great Heritage (2008) 3-9.
• Braudel 2002 F. Braudel, The Mediterranean in the Ancient World (2002).
• Bulut 1998 İ. Bulut, Torul’un Coğrafi Etüdü (1998).
• Capezzali 2008 W. Capezzali, “Transhumance in History and Bibliography”, bk.: G. Totani –
• L. Biondi – F. Celli – F. Merlonghi (ed.), Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/ Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great Heritage (2008) 61-92.
• Continenza 1996 R. Continenza, Argomenti di rappresentazione urbana (1996).
• Chailand 2004 G. Chailand, From Mongolia to the Danube: Nomadic Empires (2004).
• Darkot 1968 B. Darkot, Türkiye İktisadî Coğrafyası (1968).
• Doğanay – Coşkun 2013
• H. Doğanay – O. Coşkun, “Türkiye Yaylacılığındaki Değişme Eğilimleri ve Başlıca Sorunları”, Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı 30, 2013.
• Emiroğlu 1977 M. Emiroğlu, Bolu’da Yaylalar ve Yaylacılık (1977).
• Ginio 2006 A. Ginio, “Akdeniz Düşüncesi: Henri Pirenne, Shelomo Dov Goitein ve Fernand
• Braudel”, bk.: E. Özveren – O. Özel – S. Ünal – K. Emiroğlu (ed.) Akdeniz Dünyası: Düşünce, Tarih, Görünüm (1991).
• Herzog v.d. 2005 F. Herzog – R. H. Bunce – M. Pérez-Soba – R. Jongman – A. Gómez Sal – I. Austad
• “Policy Options to Support Transhumance and Biodiversity in European Mountains”, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 25 No 1, 2005, 82-87.
• Johnson 1969 D. L. Johnson, The Nature of Nomadism: A Comparative Study of Pastoral Migrations in South-Western Asia and Northern Africa (1969).
• Karpuz – Bakır 1991 H. Karpuz – İ. Bakır, “Türkiye’de İkinci Konut olarak Yayla, Mezra ve Tatil Evleri”, Türkiye Aile Yıllığı, 1991, 301-310.
• Kavas 2009 K. R. Kavas, Environmental Aesthetics of the Rural Architectural Tradition in the Mediterranean Highlander Settlement: The Case Study of Ürünlü (2009).
• Kavas 2012 K. R. Kavas, “Türk Konut Mimarisinde Tarihsel Süreklilikler: Orta Asya ve Anadolu”, Belleten, Vol. LXXVI, 2012, 503-538.
• Kavas 2013 K. R. Kavas, “Mimariyi Dokumak: Anadolu-Batı Toros Göçerlerinde Çevre – Kültür İlişkisi”, Bilig, Sayı: 64, 2013, 231-258.
• Kavas – Bakır 2015 K. R. Kavas – İ. Bakır, “A Comparative Analysis of the Past and Present: Plateau Settlements and Semi-Nomadic Life in the Taurus Mountains (Turkey)”, Athens Journal of Mediterranean Studies 3, 2015, 235-247.
• Köprülü 1972 M. F. Köprülü, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Kuruluşu (1972)
• Marini 2008 F. Marini, “Presentation”, bk.: G. Totani – L. Biondi – F. Celli – F. Merlonghi (ed.)
• Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great
• Heritage (2008) xi-xiv.
• Medoro 2008 E. Medoro, “Memory, Emotion and Imagination: a Comment to Adagio Transhumante by Elio Peretti”, bk.: G. Totani – L. Biondi – F. Celli – F. Merlonghi (ed.)
• Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great Heritage (2008) 25-27.
• Morico 2003 W. Morico, Castelvecchio Calvisio: Storia e territorio (2003).
• Naumann 1991 R. Naumann, Eski Anadolu Mimarlığı (1991).
• Redi 2008 F. Redi, “Landscapes of Transhumance”, bk.: G. Totani – L.Biondi – F. Celli –
• F. Merlonghi (ed.), Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great Heritage (2008) 129-190.
• Saraçoğlu 1989 H. Saraçoğlu, Akdeniz Bölgesi (1989).
• Seyirci 2000 M. Seyirci, Batı Akdeniz Bölgesi Yörükleri (2000).
• Tanyeli 1996 U. Tanyeli, “Anadolu’da Bizans, Osmanlı Öncesi ve Osmanlı Dönemlerinde Yerleşme ve Barınma Düzeni”, Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme - T.C. Başbakanlık TOKİ II. B.M. İnsan Yerleşimleri - Habitat 1996 Konferansı Bildiriler ve Sergi Kitabı (1996) 405-471.
• Totani 2008 G. Totani, “Indelible Memory: the Shepherds’Abruzzi”, bk.: G. Totani – L. Biondi – F. Celli – F. Merlonghi (ed.), Tratturi e Transhumanza: Arte e Cultura/Sheep-Tracks and Transhumance: A Great Heritage (2008) 29-60.
• Tunçdilek 1964 N. Tunçdilek, “Türkiye’de Yaylalar ve Yaylacılık”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 7, Sayı: 14, 1964, 15-28.
• Tunçdilek 1967 N. Tunçdilek, Türkiye İskân Coğrafyası (1967).
• Tunçdilek 1985 N. Tunçdilek, Türkiye’de Relief Şekilleri ve Arazi Kullanımı (1985).
• Tunçdilek 1986 N. Tunçdilek, Türkiye’de Yerleşmenin Evrimi (1986).
• Yalman 1993 A. R. Yalman, Cenupta Türkmen Oymakları (1993).