Download PDF | Rudolf Meyer Riefstahl, Turkish Architecture in Southwestern Anatolia. Harvard University Press, 1931.
215 Pages
FOREWORD
THE present preliminary account summarizes the results of an expedition into Southwestern Anatolia, undertaken in connection with a series of lec- tures on Turkish art given at the International College in Smyrna, which du- plicated more or less a series of lectures on the same subject delivered at Rob- ert College, Constantinople. I used Smyrna as a base and made three trips from there: one to Manissa, the second to Aidin, Antalia, and Alaya, the third to Birgeh and Tireh.
I havé not visited the monuments of Ephesus (Ayasoluk, now called Seljuk), since the Islamic monuments of that city have been dealt with by the Austrian publication on Ephesus. Nor have I visited Balat (Miletus), since its famous mosque has been thoroughly studied and surveyed by the German scholars engaged in the excavations there. Except for a short notice, their record has not yet been published; but it is superfluous to duplicate or to anticipate the slowly maturing work of others.
I have not yet studied the Islamic mom- ments of Bergama (Pergamon) nor those of Mughla and Melas, leaving them for another year's work. However, I do not think that, with the exception of the buildings mentioned, many important buildings in Southwestern Ana- tolia have been overlooked. The present preliminary account aims to be a record of monuments, de- tailed work on which should be undertaken at a later date; it aims, in other words, to show the archaeological possibilities in the cities of Southwestern Anatolia. The buildings have been paced off but not measured, and in many details the sketch diagrams will have to be corrected upon close investigation.
In order to make this point clear, every plan which is not in exact scale has been marked "sketch diagram" (these diagrams are available to others for reproduction on condition that the reproduction be marked "sketch dia- gram"). Such a sketch, however, emphasizes the essential features of a build- ing so much more clearly than a long description that I have felt justified in this mode of procedure. As to inscriptions, as many photographic records have been made as limited time permitted. In many cases the kindness of Turkish scholars or hodjas pro- vided me with copies of inscriptions which I was unable to photograph but which seemed important.
This epigraphic material contains many numbers hitherto unpublished, and in many other cases completes or emends material already known. My friend Dr. Paul Wittek, of the German Library in Stam- bul, was kind enough to undertake the publication of my epigraphic material, which forms the second part of the present publication. I wish to thank him for his kind help and for the thorougliness with which he has handled his share of the work. This publication is devoted to the study of Turkish art. However, when Byzantine material was encountered which seemed worth while, I tried to re- cord it as faithfully as possible, without any pretense at completeness or com- petent criticism.
The photographs of this publication are all my own, with the exception of Figs. 75 and 208, which I owe to the kindness of Suleiman Fikri Bey, Director of the Museum of Antalia. Contact prints or enlargements of my negatives published in this paper will be supplied at cost, and may be reproduced with proper acknowledgment. I shall be glad if this contribution will increase the interest in Turkish art. Concerning the monuments of Turkish architecture, I have tried first to give a short description pointing out their main characteristics. Second, an attempt has been made to indicate the significance of each work within the evolution of Turkish art. I think that, combined with the photographs, these descriptions will afford a fairly clear picture of what has been preserved and will indicate the lines on which future detailed research should be conducted.
The selection of monuments is catholic, giving as much importance to a momument-mosque or private dwelling of the eighteenth century as to a Seljuk monument, provided the monument studied seemed to express an original thought. In many cases the bad or indifferent has been noted as such in order to save the time of future investigators. Often I have recorded infor- mation obtained by hearsay about monuments that I was not able to visit. for lack of time, but the number of unvisited monuments is, I think, not large. Particular stress has been laid on the study of decorative features, objects of art, and manuscripts. Woodwork, rugs, and ceramic decorations in mosques, as well as elsewhere, have been carefully noted. As far as possible inquired for manuscripts and took a record if the manuscript was of interest. Extant libraries have been visited or at least recorded, and in the museums note has been made of the objects of art and manuscripts that seemed of in- terest for the history of Turkish art.
It will be noted that the spelling of localities differs in my part of the text and in Dr. Wittek's contribution. I do not think that the student of the his- tory of art is particularly interested in the phonetic rendering of names with which he is generally acquainted through a traditional spelling. This tradi- tional spelling has been preserved in my text, while on the other hand I have scrupulously respected Dr. Wittek's, which is the logical rendering in a publi- cation that will be consulted mainly by historians and Orientalists.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق