Conclusion and Results: 1.The urban planning and survival of Istanbul is almost solely reliant on the geography of the city. Other ancient coastal cies in Asia Minor flourished in anquity but did not recover from earthquakes so readily and oſten did not connue as major centres through the Second Mil- lennium AD. Istanbul by contrast is situated in the opmum posion for trade and growth due to its posion on the Bosporus. 2. My fieldwork highlighted that the modern urban planning in Istanbul adapts itself to the city’s history. The city walls of Istanbul, which in parts have been preserved for tourism and historical protecon, have in other parts been integrated into the fabric of the city. Where parts of the walls have fallen, residenal or commercial buildings have sprung up to bridge the gap, adapng these walls to the modern city. In other parts the old gates of the walls or the arches of the Aqueduct have been adapted to allow traffic to pass through them. There- fore showing the ancient parts of the city becoming integral to the ever-changing modern city. 3.I have crically evaluated the tendency of archaeologists and planners to overlook the his- toric value and contemporary significance of Islamic, Byzanne, Ooman influences in street networks. The winding backstreets and alleyways of Istanbul, synonymous with the later Byz- anne and Ooman periods, are a stark contrast to the large, straight, colonnaded streets of the Greco-Roman period. These large open streets are seen as more aesthecally pleasing and more sophiscated which is potenally why Byzanne and Ooman periods are de- scribed more oſten as “declines”. Introducon: Istanbul (previously Constannople) has been almost consistently inhabited from 600BC to the modern day and has served as the bridge from Western Europe to the East. Therefore the city itself is the epitome of mul- culturalism both now and historically. In its near 3000 years of existence it has undergone many changes in its inhabitants, rulers, religion e.c.t all of which have had an effect on the urban layout and architecture of Istanbul. Aims: •To understand how Greco-Roman urban planning shaped modern Istanbul, focusing on the “Old City” •To use the ancient cies of Asia minor to provide a comparison to Istanbul, as they are “snapshots” of ancient urban planning and architec- ture from a range of me periods. •To consider why Islamic, Byzanne and Oriental urban planning designs have been overlooked and look at how they have impacted on the city. Invesgang the Ancient Urban Planning of Modern Istanbul Flora McDougall* - 130644516 - School of History, Classics and Archaeology - [email protected] - Supervised by Dr Mark Jackson Methods : •I conducted source-based research. I read relevant documents to gain an understand of ancient urban planning and specific documents of the sites I would be vising. I also familiarised myself with plans and maps of the cies I would visit. •I then travelled to the coast of Asia Minor, where I visited Hierapolis, Aphrodisias, Laodicea, Ephesus, Miletus, Priene. All these sites are ruins, they allowed me to familiarize myself with the urban planning of specific periods and how these sites changed during their inhabitaon. •Lastly I visited Istanbul, while there I spent the majority of my me vising the sites that dated to the Greco-Roman period. However, I also visited the important Byzanne, Islamic and Ooman sites, which are merged within the “old city” and explored the ancient streets of the city. Hierapolis’ Fronnus Street. The main street in the Roman town, shows signs of changing urban development. Byzanne houses have encroached on to the main, open and once colonnaded street. Above: A map of the “Ancient City” of Istanbul, showing its important landmarks, the hill summits and its posion on the Golden Horn and Bosporus, allowing access to the sea. Below: Right: Aphrodisias’ temple destroyed by an earthquake. Centre: Miletus today due to the changing shorelines. Leſt: Priene’s Temple of Athena, destroyed by an earthquake Figure 3: Istanbul’s aqueduct incorporated into the modern city. References: Arthur, P. (2006) Byzanne and Turkish Hierapolis (Pamukkale) : an archaeological guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari Crow, J. & Bayliss, R. & Bardill, J. (2008) The water supply of Byzanne Constannople, London: Society for the Promoon of Roman Studies. Dark, K. & Özgümüş, F. (2013) Constannople: Archaeology of a Byzanne Megapolis, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Freely, J. (2000) The companion guide to Istanbul. Woodbridge: Companion Guides Ortwin, D. & Raé, C. (2011) Archaeology and the Cies of Late Anquity in Asia Minor. Michigan: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Sumner - Boyd, H. & Freely, J. (1972) Strolling Through Istanbul. Istanbul: Redhouse Press Acknowledgements: •I would like to thank Dr Mark Jackson for all his support and guidance during my research. •I would like to thank Torquil and Susie McDougall and Henry Foenander for accompanying me on my visits to Turkey. •I would like to thank the Archaeologists at Laodicea, who provided me with so much informaon and were very welcoming and kind. •I would like to thank Newcastle University for funding my scholarship.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Conclusion and Results:
1.The urban planning and survival of Istanbul is almost solely reliant on the geography of the
city. Other ancient coastal cities in Asia Minor flourished in antiquity but did not recover from
earthquakes so readily and often did not continue as major centres through the Second Mil-
lennium AD. Istanbul by contrast is situated in the optimum position for trade and growth due
to its position on the Bosporus.
2. My fieldwork highlighted that the modern urban planning in Istanbul adapts itself to the
city’s history. The city walls of Istanbul, which in parts have been preserved for tourism and
historical protection, have in other parts been integrated into the fabric of the city. Where
parts of the walls have fallen, residential or commercial buildings have sprung up to bridge
the gap, adapting these walls to the modern city. In other parts the old gates of the walls or
the arches of the Aqueduct have been adapted to allow traffic to pass through them. There-
fore showing the ancient parts of the city becoming integral to the ever-changing modern
city.
3.I have critically evaluated the tendency of archaeologists and planners to overlook the his-
toric value and contemporary significance of Islamic, Byzantine, Ottoman influences in street
networks. The winding backstreets and alleyways of Istanbul, synonymous with the later Byz-
antine and Ottoman periods, are a stark contrast to the large, straight, colonnaded streets of
the Greco-Roman period. These large open streets are seen as more aesthetically pleasing
and more sophisticated which is potentially why Byzantine and Ottoman periods are de-
scribed more often as “declines”.
Introduction:
Istanbul (previously Constantinople) has been almost consistently inhabited from 600BC to the modern day and has served as the bridge from Western Europe to the East. Therefore the city itself is the epitome of multi-culturalism both now and historically. In its near 3000 years of existence it has undergone many changes in its inhabitants, rulers, religion e.c.t all of which have had an effect on the urban layout and architecture of Istanbul.
Aims:
•To understand how Greco-Roman urban planning shaped modern Istanbul, focusing on the “Old City” •To use the ancient cities of Asia minor to provide a comparison to Istanbul, as they are “snapshots” of ancient urban planning and architec-ture from a range of time periods. •To consider why Islamic, Byzantine and Oriental urban planning designs have been overlooked and look at how they have impacted on the city.
Investigating the Ancient Urban Planning of Modern Istanbul Flora McDougall* - 130644516 - School of History, Classics and Archaeology - [email protected] - Supervised by Dr Mark Jackson
Methods :
•I conducted source-based research. I read relevant documents to gain an understand of ancient urban planning and specific documents of the sites I would be visiting. I also familiarised myself with plans and maps of the cities I would visit. •I then travelled to the coast of Asia Minor, where I visited Hierapolis, Aphrodisias, Laodicea, Ephesus, Miletus, Priene. All these sites are ruins, they allowed me to familiarize myself with the urban planning of specific periods and how these sites changed during their inhabitation. •Lastly I visited Istanbul, while there I spent the majority of my time visiting the sites that dated to the Greco-Roman period. However, I also visited the important Byzantine, Islamic and Ottoman sites, which are merged within the “old city” and explored the ancient streets of the city.
Hierapolis’
Frontinus Street.
The main street in
the Roman town,
shows signs of
changing urban
development.
Byzantine houses
have encroached on
to the main, open
and once
colonnaded street.
Above: A map of the “Ancient City” of Istanbul, showing its important landmarks, the hill
summits and its position on the Golden Horn and Bosporus, allowing access to the sea.
Below: Right: Aphrodisias’ temple destroyed by an earthquake. Centre: Miletus today due
to the changing shorelines. Left: Priene’s Temple of Athena, destroyed by an earthquake
Figure 3: Istanbul’s aqueduct incorporated into the
modern city.
References:
Arthur, P. (2006) Byzantine and Turkish Hierapolis (Pamukkale) : an archaeological guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari
Crow, J. & Bayliss, R. & Bardill, J. (2008) The water supply of Byzantine Constantinople, London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.
Dark, K. & Özgümüş, F. (2013) Constantinople: Archaeology of a Byzantine Megapolis, Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Freely, J. (2000) The companion guide to Istanbul. Woodbridge: Companion Guides
Ortwin, D. & Ratté, C. (2011) Archaeology and the Cities of Late Antiquity in Asia Minor. Michigan: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology
Sumner - Boyd, H. & Freely, J. (1972) Strolling Through Istanbul. Istanbul: Redhouse Press
Acknowledgements:
•I would like to thank Dr Mark
Jackson for all his support and
guidance during my research.
•I would like to thank Torquil and
Susie McDougall and Henry
Foenander for accompanying me
on my visits to Turkey.
•I would like to thank the
Archaeologists at Laodicea, who
provided me with so much
information and were very
welcoming and kind.
•I would like to thank Newcastle
University for funding my
scholarship.
Related Documents
