Ömer can inşaat konya

The settlements and material remains will be explained in the following section. Table 1: Investigated Settlements of the Survey Season. No architectural features are preserved and no worked building blocks were seen. This led to the destruction and also to the reduction of the settlement size. The number of pottery sherds on the mound were limited. Among them were hand-formed body sherds, probably Early Chalcolithic, also pottery from Middle Iron Age and Roman periods were found.

It is an almond-shaped settlement mound, which measures N-S m x E-W m and is around 3 m high. The settlement is located inside a fertile alluvial plain and has an important strategic location.

One side is flat and the other dome-shaped. It is likely the cover of a small tomb. On one of the short sides it has a dome shaped cavity.

As the mound was covered with belly-high barley, no other worked stones or architectural features were discovered. Among the pottery were pieces from the Middle Bronze Age Fig. Also, a few obsidian tool fragments were found. The area is used as a field, which made surveying impossible. The size of the settlement could not be measured, as only very few pottery fragments were found. No worked stones or architectural remains were observed. Among the pottery fragments which lay on the ground were Roman pottery sherds and green glazed ones, which probably date to the Byzantine Period.

The settlement has an important strategic location, connecting south-north and west- east and is also located within very fertile alluvial land. It was surveyed by J. Mellaart 10 and S. On the slopes, on top, and surrounding it are several large and small animal holes, mostly from foxes, as well as illicit excavations. At the edges of the northern and northeastern slopes are m high small mounds Fig. The villagers say that once around years ago there were tin workshops under these mounds.

The pottery on these small, shallow mounds dates to the Middle Iron, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman periods. Among them were also rounded pot sherds, which have rounded edges and generally are interpreted as lids. The pottery and beads which were found in this building seem to be Late Ottoman and Republican. Other than these foundations, no other architectural remains were discovered.

During the survey season, several fragments of Middle Bronze Age pottery were found Fig. The red-burnished handle belongs to a two- handled bowl Fig. Among the collected handles was also a fragment of a dear-shaped handle, which dates probably to the Middle or Late Bronze Age Fig. Perhaps they were looted from these sites.

During our survey, we encountered the same phenomenon. Among the Middle Iron Age pottery were examples with compass-made circles the compass hole is still visible which are painted black on buff ware. Several glazed pottery fragments and glass bracelet pieces were found. These glass bracelet fragments, in particular, suggest that there was likely a production center for these bracelets here. This cave is referred to as an underground town by the villagers. Also, two obsidian tool fragments, an obsidian arrow and flint pieces were found.

The settlement is located inside a fertile plain, which is divided into small garden units. The settlement is N-S m x E-W m and around 6 m high. It consists of an acropolis and a lower level settlement, which have a height difference of around 3 m.

On the northeastern part are the remains of a stone foundation. These wall foundations are around 1 m wide and 5 m long and extend from north to south. The foundation is made of medium sized stones. The villagers dismantled these walls around years ago and have built walls for their fields and gardens Fig.

Among these walls are also large, roughly-shaped boulders, which might have been part of monumental structures.

Inside an illicit excavation hole, fragments of red-painted plaster, mud- brick pieces, and body sherds were found. Since there was no diagnostic pottery among the group, it is difficult to date them. The settlement has been a registered area since The ancient settlement was established on a natural rock plateau. The intense smell of the sulfur can be detected from miles away. One of them is on the southern slope and is 2.

The tomb on top is 2. No other architectural features were recorded. The pottery showed that the site was inhabited from the Neolithic period until the Byzantine period. They are all located on the same horizontal axis. The eastern part was destroyed by small roads and irrigation canals. In the northeastern lower town were the tents of Syrian refugees who came here as seasonal workers.

This has led to destruction and illicit excavations. Pottery was collected from the northern lower town. Basket handle fragments with fingertip prints at the bottom were discovered. Similar types are known from the Middle Bronze Age levels of Beycesultan Among the tombstones were ancient stones. One of the tombstones depicts two crosses and probably dates to the Byzantine period.

On top are several large, deep illicit excavation holes. No remains of architecture were visible. Only a few sherds were found, which date to the Roman and Byzantine periods. This must be a small settlement connected to the Roman bridge. On the settlement, and also around it, no architectural remains were preserved. The collected pottery shows a wide range from the Early Bronze Age to Byzantine periods. No architectural remains or worked stones were seen.

The few collected pottery sherds date to the Roman period. It is located around 1. Several foxholes are spread over the ancient settlement, and it is covered with short, thorny bushes which made a survey almost impossible.

The pottery sherds were on the mound and also spread across the fields. Its northeastern part was bulldozed to create a water canal and to remove dirt for construction.

No architectural remains were discovered, except for two rectangular-shaped and stone-framed structures on the southern slope, which supposedly are graves of the villagers. Pottery was mainly collected from the top, southwestern and eastern slopes. The northern part did not reveal much pottery due to deep bulldozer activity. The rhyton is 7. It came to his attention because it is close to his fields, and he saw people digging there at night.

When we went there, we encountered several looted Roman graves. It is a flat settlement with a cemetery, with no elevation, like most of the Roman settlements in this region. The settlement is 2.

The graves are mainly cist graves which are lined with slightly-worked, rectangular, flat stone slabs Fig. They are east-west oriented. The western part was covered with Roman and Byzantine pottery pieces. However, since the Roman Period is not included in our permit, we did not conduct any further investigations.

The settlement mound is N-S m x E-W m and stretches southeast to northeast across a hill. The southern slopes seems to be part of the settlement. The whole area is used for agriculture. At first sight, it looks like that there are two settlements. The settlement seems to be at an important strategic location, higher up on the hill and surrounded by fertile land.

It is 2. The castle is around half an hour walking distance from the village. On top are round cisterns and steps carved into the rock. The settlement is fortified, and remains of the foundations are visible. The stones used were quarried from the hilltop. Within the wall are rectangular and oval building structures.

There are several illicit excavations, and in one of them a capital was discovered. The pottery seems to be mainly Late Antique and Byzantine. Some of them have crosses depicted on them. It is a fortress built on a natural, shallow rock. The fortress stretches from northwest to southeast and is N-S m x E-W m, occupying an area of around The whole site was once fortified with a cyclopean wall. The fortress is built of a dark grey-blackish stone, which shines in the sun like silver. It is probably some kind of volcanic stone.

The northern portion is the highest part around 6 m high of the fortress Fig. The fortification walls are built around a rocky outcrop, and some wall portions are still standing in the northern section, where they are around m high with courses preserved. The rest of the walls are destroyed and the boulders are scattered across the site. The fortification walls of the southern part are practically all destroyed, and here the stones are also widely scattered.

The local villagers told us that they used the stones to build their houses and removed many from the site. Tall buildings as new landmarks has competition with traditional historical landmarks in Konya. There are about 25 Seljuk buildings with portal remaining in Anatolia. Some of the most well-known and beautiful Ancient Seljuks portal is in Konya.

One of them is Karatay Medresse. Karatay Medresse, constructed in , stands to the north of this hill, and now is a museum which holds the best examples of Seljuk tiles and ceramics. Bewildered landmark challenging the ancient city. Old post cards, calendars and stamps give clues about landmark. İnceminare and Karatay Medresse. Analysis of interview texts focused on meaning of environment that connected participants to their life style, their perception. The primary method of the study is to contact with volunteers to take photography according to our comment.

A follow-up letter was sent to recruits reiterating instructions on their role as a study participant:. Focus on the physical elements which are reference point of you while walking or driving. This item may be a huge building or very small sidewalk. The only thing you should be carefully while deciding these chosen photos should give an answer one of three questions mentioned below;. The places you take pictures could be related to this three questions.

After you are finished taking pictures, send the camera back to us. We will schedule a time to talk about your special places. After selecting ten photos, we need your description, feeling, reason to about that selection.

During our follow-up discussion, we will ask about the places in your pictures and their importance to you. Thank you for your support. We did not put any limitation for defining where the boundaries of Konya as a city. We asked each participant to take 10 photos according to our question. Each participant was coupled with long interviews, referred to as photo-elicitation. We asked participants to take pictures of reference points of Konya according to them.

We did not make any explanation or definition about landmarks. Students, tourists and city dwellers took pictures and then write description of that picture. From their analysis, we able to identify places sign. Six different groups of landmarks are defined as;. The detail of this classification is seen in Table 1 , Table 2 and Table 3. Table 1. The classification of landmark according to photo-elicitation.

Table 2. The ratio of symbolic power of landmark according different perception. Table 3. The impression about the landmark. Thirty participants took photographs of city center of Konya and interviewed while viewing their photographs.

When we check the table obtained from photo-elicitation we can get that conclusion;. Tourists are more conscious about that historical landmark.

Students and city dwellers are using that spaces often. Thus these places have a meaning for the user and they are a reference point of them. All groups have found that high-rise buildings which effects the city silhouette.

When we look at the phtoes of participant in that group with their story about that photo, we can say that reference point is just a sign in their mind and memory.

Similarly Copy center 99 and Chamber of Architecture is a sign and have a meaning symbolically. However, tourists and city dwellers have no idea about that specific point. Why Buildings Are Known. Environment and Behavior, 1, The View from the Road.

The Semiology of Landmarks in Urban Space. Papanikos Ed. Writing Degree Zero. London: Jonathan Cape. Environment and Behavior, 8, Cognitive Processing, 9, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, Environment and Behavior, 37, Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, Writing and Difference Trans. Alan Bass. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, Cognition of Physical and Built Environments. Evans Eds.

New York: Oxford University Press. Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press. Skyframe G? Journal of Urban Design, 10, Sein und Zeit. Von Herrmann Ed. World Heritage Encyclopedia. Environment and Behavior, 36, Searching for Legibility.

Environment and Behavior, 35, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, Structural Salience of Landmarks for Route Directions. Mark Eds.

Berlin: Springer. Language Sciences, 28, Environment and Behavior, 14, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, , The Image of the City. Manifestations of Symbolism in Architecture of Postmodernism. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 38, Human Factors, 48, Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Toronto: The University of Toronto. Current Anthropology, 21, Autonomous Robots, 13, Making Space.

Cinemarchitecture: Explorations into the Scopic Regime of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 62, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 31, Winter, et al. Weiss Eds. Burks Ed. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, Cultural Geographies, 14, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, Reference Points in Spatial Cognition.

Community Identities as Visions for Landspace Change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, Urban Studies, 40, Journal of Planning Literature, 16, Home Journals Article. Landmarks in Urban Space as Signs. DOI: Abstract A signal or a symbol has been sent with conscious. Share and Cite:. Bala, H. Current Urban Studies , 4 , Introduction Landmarks are a kind of signals of urban space.

Method In this research all information from the city user has been supplied with camera, video recording, voice recording and interviewing with photo elicitation. Photo elicitation techniques involve using photographs or film as part of the interview www.

Symbolism, Semiology and Urban Space Symbols are commonly applied to formal iconographic representations. The sources of semiology based on two groups: Figure 1. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References [ 1 ] Appleyard, D. Journals Menu. Contact us. All Rights Reserved. Appleyard, D. Bala Alkan, H. Barthes, R. Beck, R. Caduff, D. Carr, S. Cornell, E. Cubukcu, E. De Saussure, Ferdinand. Denis, M. Derrida, J. Froment, J.

Golledge, R. Guiraud, P. Heidegger, M. Herzog, T. Heth, C. Jansen-Osmann, P. Kalin, A. Klippel, A. Kravchenko, A. Kuipers, B. Loomis, J. Lynch, K. Mankus, M. May, A. Merriman, P.