COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE OTTOMAN INFLUENCES IN THE TRADITIONAL HOUSES OF THE CITY OF AMASYA, TURKEY AND BERAT, ALBANIA Brunilda Basha 1, Asst. Prof. Dr. Zafer Sagdic 2 1 PhD Student, Department of Architecture, Yildiz Technic University, Email: basha_ilda@hotmail.com, Tel: +905385557396 2 Lecturer, Department of Architecture, Yildiz Technic University, Email: zafersagdic@hotmail.com, Tel:+905324243115 Abstract Albania and Turkey have a deep and rich connecting history, spanning hundreds of years. Ottoman civilization left behind prominent influences on the religions, traditions, and architecture of the people who have lived in regions where Ottomans have ruled. Researches show that, on the long time period that the empire prevailed, each Ottoman city (from Central Asia to the Balkans, from North Africa to the Black Sea) developed a format related with their unique dynamics and tradition understandings. Thus, in different geographical area being under the same administrative system spatial organization of the cities share essential principles adapted with the surrounding geographical, socio-cultural and economical context. To examine this sharing principles two cities; Amasya, in Turkey and Berat, in Albania are chosen as case study. Both cities were significant places in the Ottoman Empire history. Due to growth in population, the Ottomans expanded the both cities, provided facilities and established neighborhoods outside the walls. Even though in 2017, Amasya and Berat have established a “sister city” relationship agreement, up to now there are no studies engaged to compare their urban and architectural elements and to find out the similarities and differences. Therefore, for enhancing the continuity in mutual urban outlines, this research employs a historical and descriptive approach to explore the history, design and construction of the cities layout as well as going further down to their traditional houses during the Ottoman period. The comparison of the traditional houses pointed out similarities both cities have in terms of socio- economical, religious and cultural contexts. Thus the paper will have not only the analysis of the comparison of the history of two cities, but also it will give needed recommendations that are highlighted in order to protect and restore the residential heritage of respective cities in an accordance with each other in a socio-cultural and economical base for future use. Therefore the paper would be worthwhile for those who are intending to carry out research on history and preservation of architecture. Keywords: Ottoman house, Urban planning, Albanian Ottoman House, Amasya Riverfront Houses. 1. Introduction Throughout history, Turks have lived in a vast geography from Central Asia to the Balkans, from North Africa to the Black Sea. (Güzelci, 2012) The integration of the newly territories in the Balkan, Asia, Middle East, and North Africa in the Ottoman administrative system, presented the ottomans with the enormous challenges. However they arrived in these area with a well-articulated vision of state and were equipped with the necessary tools to achieve such a reality. (Acun, 2002). According to Demirkaya (2017), on the long time period that the empire prevailed, on areas expanded to three continents, each Ottoman city developed a format related with their unique dynamics and tradition understandings. Thus, in different geographical area being under the same administrative system spatial organization of the cities share essential principles adapted with the surrounding geographical, socio-cultural and economical context. In Balkan lands, the houses built by the local and Turkish inhabitants are not called the Turkish Houses, but “local houses” with ottoman influences. To understand and compare the domestic architecture of each city requires the study of both; the ottoman architecture and the specify of each different geographical context. The urban development of cities during Ottoman Era has been studied by several scholars, such as Goodwin, Cerasi, Küçükerman, Gunay etc. In particular Turkish dwelling are studied by Küçükerman, Eldem and Akin. On the other hand, an analytical collection particularly for Balkan region is found by Akin (2001) in the book entitled Balkanlarda Osmanli Dönemi Konutlari including the country of Albania. Gunay (1999) states that the Balkan counties including Albania did not have a very developed house tradition like the Turkish house in Anatolia. Whereas Eldem divided the Turkish Balkan houses style into 8 categories due to their geographical location. Albania falls under the region of “Karadağ, Arnavutluk ve Epir” (Eldem, 1984). One outstanding feature in Albania are the Berat houses which due to topography conditions the houses follow the steep terrain.(Akin,2001) The center of the town is filled with 17th and 18th century Ottoman style architecture, a large reason to why it has been named an UNESCO Cultural Heritage Site. (Jigyasu & Arora, 2013) Local scholars like Meksi, Reza, Pashako, Samimi and others have covered the case of Berat city houses and their type. Similarly, Amasya is studied by Goodwin, Gabriel, Küçükerman, Çağdaş, Bechhoefer and Yalcin, and many more scholars. However, there is no comparative studies conducted between Albanian and Turkish houses, in this case Berat and Amasya. In this study the author starts by identifying the location and historical background of the chosen sites, later analyzes the demography and socio-economic structure during 15-19th century of the cities and at the end presents and analyzes urban and architectural language of each city as well as comparison between their similarities and differences. 2. Definition of the geographical study area The countries chosen for comparison are located in two different continents, Amasya in Asia and Berat in Southeast Europe. Located in the Middle Black Sea Region, Amasya is surrounded by Tokat in the East, Yozgat in the South, Çorum in the West and Samsun in the North. The city surface is 5.690km2. (Amasya Valiliği, 2006). The city is surrounded by the Kırklar and Sakarat mountains. (Zeybek, 2007). It is located on a valley, 400 meters above the sea level, created by the Yeşilırmak River that passes through Amasya. While, Berat is a city in southern Albania. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013) It is surrounded by Fier in the West, Gramsh in the East, Tepelene and Permet in the South, Skrapar in the Southeast and Elbasan in the North. The city surface is 379.98km2. The city is placed on the banks of the river Osum. (Berat Municipality, 2018) The landscape surrounding the town is bent from the mountains Shpiragu and Tomorri. Both cities share a similar terrain structure, sloppy with the river going throw the city and two hilly sides created from the mountain. The area size has a difference where Amasya is much bigger. Figure 1. Amasya location map. Turkish Statistical Institute (2010) Figure 2: Berat location map National Statistical (2014) 3. Historical Background Amasya and Berat have been continuously inhabited from ancient times down to the present day. Amasya is one of the oldest settlements of Anatolia. The history of the city of Amasya, goes back 5500 years BC based on data from archaeological excavations and scientific research. (Doğanbaş, 1996). Throughout the years, Amasya has been home to a number of civilizations that have settled before the Turks such as the Hittites (1680 BC), the Phrygians (1200 BC), the Kimmerian-Scythes (700 BC), the Med-Persians (585 BC), and by Persian-Pontus (331 BC). The Seljuk Turks moved in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, initially occupying the south river bank. In 1243 the region was conquered by a Mongol dynasty and in 1386 it was taken by Sultan Beyazid and incorporated into the Ottoman Empire. (Bechhoefer & Yalçin, 1991). According to Bechoefer and Yalcin (1999), political stability under the Ottomans brought prosperity to the city. Ottoman sultans were generous patrons who contributed to Amasya’s richness by establishing mosques, medreses, and libraries. Architectural and urban development in the Ottoman period was consequently significant. The city was an important religious, educational, and cultural center in the sixteenth century, and it profited from being on the main road between Istanbul and Tebriz. Amasya in 16th century had 60 districts (mahalle). The district population was divided due to religion beliefs. Thus the Muslim inhabitants were 77% of total population, 17 % were Jews and the rest Christians, Ermeni and Rum. In 17th century, as studied by Jennings (1976) Amasya might have lost somehow its commercial importance compare to the neighbor cities. In terms of economic life, Amasya was an agriculture land and the local economy depended on orchard and vineyards. Good quality cotton cloths and carpets were produced. Referring again to Jennings (1976) statistics, the districts involved with trades and commerce were exclusively Muslim in population. The social life of the inhabitants had a hierarchy. For example, while analyzing the urban development of Amasya, it is found out that the wealthy landowner lived just next by the river, and behind them will be placed the middle class landowners and later the low class. The palace was higher up with servants quarters built below the Pontic Tomb. Bechoefer &Yalcin, (1999) Berat city life began as an Illyrian settlement in the 6th-5th century B.C. Later, in the 3rd century B.C., it was taken under the Roman control. The city walls were built during medieval period. From the 9th to 11th centuries, Berat was invaded and conquered twice by the Bulgarians but would be taken back by the Roman Byzantine Empire and controlled by the Muzaka family. The Turks took over occupation of Berat in 1417. In the 15th century until the year 1912 Berat thrived under Ottoman control. From the records it is realized that Berat until the 15th century was enclosed around the walls of the castle. With the establishment of Ottoman rule, the city had expanded beyond the siege walls, in the Magalem and Gorice districts. In the book of Meksi, Reza and Bace, (2011) “Berat. History and architecture” we learn that there was a rapid growth of the city after 15th century, as many villagers, mostly craftsmen migrated to the center of the city. In terms of socio-economical life, Berat was the most developed city in Albania, which had over 1,000 homes and more craftsmen and merchants than other cities (654 handicrafts, 13 traders, 13 with indefinite occupation and 147 timarlinj, while 444 Christians were farmers. Baçe, Meksi & Riza (1988) From the data can be assumed that the Muslim community marks 65% of the city and similarly with Amasya the Muslim population were the one involved with trade and commerce. In the middle of 17h century Berat had 30 neighborhoods, 10 of them belong to Christian population and 20 to Muslims. This shows that the neighborhoods where divided based on the religious affiliation. The agriculture has been always been present in the development of the city. Celebi writes that the Osum River watered thousands of rice fields and thousands of watermelons surrounded by fences. The mention of rare goods in the Berat market and the arrival of Venetian merchants give evidences of the economic power of the city. In the middle of 18th century Berat had become the centerpiece of a great inter- regional system. It can be said that the demographic growth, the significant increase in the crafts and residential housing, prosperity of social life characterize Berat of the 17-18th century. Table 1. Demographic and socio-economic comparison table (Source: The author) AMASYA BERAT Demography Bigger Population( 960 districts) 5000 houses, (E.Celebi) Population smaller (30 districts) 1000 houses(E.Celebi) Religion Muslim population- 77% Others: Jews, Christians, Ermeni, Rum, Muslim population 65% Others: Christians Economy development Agriculture cities due to the land features Production of orchard and vineyards Muslim community involved in trading and commerce, while other religious community involved in farming and agriculture Trade of cotton cloth and carpets Agriculture cities due to the land features Production of rice fields and watermelon Muslim community involved in trading and commerce, while other religious community involved in farming and agriculture Trade of handicrafts products Strategic location Main road between Istanbul and Tebriz Centerpiece of a great inter- regional system. 4. Architectural Development As reference from Demirkaya (2017) the rules of the typical Ottoman urban pattern which as described by Cerasi (1999) are: wooden houses with broken roofs, a domed mosque, a special order of the city roads, a market, separation of the economical and residential roles and expansion of the city composition to nature, are the basic factors forming the city structure. The Ottomans did not destroy nothing found from previous Empires. Moreover it continued the city development by incorporating its principles. In order to understand how these rules were applied in the chosen region, the focus will be in Amasya and Berat city layout furthering down to their respective typical house design. General City Layout Cities are developed each day in parallel with their demography, and thus started to expand with the development of new quarters related with the new formations conducted by the foundations with increasing population and construction activities. (Demirkaya, 2017) In Amasya, topography and social responsibility conditioned urban form. The urban rivers cape is architecturally and symbolically the heart of city, the linear center for layers of buildings and gardens parallel to the river. The Ottomans used traces of ancient neighborhood and built their houses upon them. Therefore the city wall did not served as a protection, but a masonry wall for their foundation. (Adem, &Çağdaş, 2018) The limited amount of space for building on the river front gave rise to attached houses with a particular plan organization framed by parallel walls (Fig.3). The rooms closest to the street are shops and guest quarters for visitors. The layering of the house plan in relation to the river, to the street, to the south sun and to degrees of privacy within the house reinforces the layering of the overall urban plan. (Bechofer &Yalcin, 1999) The river divide the urban development in two parts as seen from the section (Fig.4). In north side are placed straight the Ottoman houses. The palace was higher up with servants' quarters built precariously on the very steep land below the Pontic tombs. Both sides of the river are connected with bridge. From south side a promenade take place as well as Beyazit Mosque. (Fig.4) Although many houses are dilapidated, the neighborhood is exceptional in conveying the scale, character and amenity of an Ottoman. The ottoman architecture in Amasya includes those of any Anatolian cities: mosques from Selcuklu period till early 19th century, medreses, bridges, bathhouses, covered markets, clock towers, health centers and housing. Figure 3. Diagrammatic Amasya site plan. Bechhoefer & Yalcin (1991) Figure 4. Diagrammatic section of Amasya, demonstrating the layering of buildings and open spaces flanking the river drawing by Victor Burbank. Bechhoefer & Yalcin (1991) Referring to several scholars who studied the Berat City progress, it is agreed that Berat prospered when the Ottomans gained control of the city and much of the modern-day old sectors of Berat can be attributed to the Ottoman Empire. Due to migration of the rural population to the city Centre, the development of new districts were needed. Meksi, Reza &Bace (2011). The city started to grow and expand in the hills on both sides of the Osum River until 17th century creating three residential areas; Kala (from earlier times) and Mangalem and Gorica during 15-19th century. These neighborhoods (Kala, Mangalem and Gorica) (Fig.5) arise on sloping and rocky ground. This has always influenced the process of design and composition of the house. The lack of shallow soils has led to different typology according to social classes. During Ottoman period the new religious structure of mosque was introduced. The mosque was the central point and all other amenities will be built around it. Inside the Kala (castle) neighborhood were built two mosques which are demolished. Kiel (2012) and three more in Mangalem neighborhood (King mosque, Leaded mosque, and mosque of Bachelors). Other religious structures include Tekkes and churches from the Byzantine period. The road network was as such where two main roads extend along the river sides. Other roads are spreading in a number of narrow, and cobbled pavements. The secondary road associated with the main roads facilitated the smooth and peaceful movement of the inhabitants. In addition to those, there were also third-party roads, narrower and connecting the residential houses with each other. Since 1959 the city was declared a "museum city" and became an experimental laboratory for restoration and conservation example for the whole of Albania. Strazimiri (1971) Figure 5. Protected area Site plan showing three neighborhoods. Pashako (2012) Figure 6. Diagrammatic section of Berat, demonstrating the layering of buildings and residential neighborhood. (Drawing of the author) Amasya and Berat House Development From Beyazit (2014) opinion Turkish houses have a characteristic style within the Ottoman Empire. The similarities between the traditional domestic architecture in Anatolia and the Balkans are related to the duration of Ottoman rule in individual countries. From the studies hold by Akin, or Pashako on Balkan houses, it can be agreed that the similarities between Balkan and Anatolia can be found in the architectural structure, spatial organization, façade language, furniture and decorative elements, as well as the same terminology for the internal and constructive elements. These aspects of the house are analyzed further in this study. The Amasya houses are in many respects typical of many houses in northern Anatolia that fostered a rich tradition of wood working and the development of structural framing, cabinet work and surface paneling. Spatial organization: There are several type of houses developed in Amasya, however the main concept is the same. The houses are arranged as harem (woman quarters) and selamlik (men’s quarter) (Fig.7) Most of houses are two story buildings. The entrance to the house is done through the garden or courtyard which lies between man and woman quarter in each house (Fig. 8). The garden has multi-function such as; creating privacy between street and the house (Doğanbaş, 1996); connection to the nature as well as growing of vegetables and fruits. The basement floors under the ground is used as a storage or service place for those working with trading. The plan of the upper floor shows similar characteristics to the Traditional Turkish House. Living (Sofa) and rooms (oda) determine the plan type. The rooms “oda” are open to the living “sofa” which integrates all parts of the units with each other. Fireplaces are a very important feature of living rooms. The parts of the sofa which were free from circulation were used for sitting and these parts were from the sofa in the form of eyvan. Figure 9, illustrates different type of Amasya house plans (inner, outer, corner and sofa plan) Views: There were few rules governing the siting of houses, but it was imperative not to block the view of a neighbor nor to overlook the privacy of a garden. (Bechhoefer &Yalçın, 1991) Second floors of the houses are generally bay windowed (Fig.10). As a result, these windows both maintain the symmetrical structure of the house and make more room. Landscape: All units, both in inner spaces and outer units of the houses are connected and therefore complete each other. Planting in private gardens hangs out over the street, (Fig.11) softening the already humane scale of the neighborhood. The response to the temperate climate has been to create rooms which can be opened to breezes in the summer and closed for warmth in the relatively mild winter. Abundant rainfall sustains a garden for every house and water-well (Fig.12) are among the first notable units in courtyards or gardens. Decoration: The house interior is quite rich in decoration and furniture. The application of wood is quite massive. In floor finishes, in the ceiling finishes as well as in the openings or other furniture. Materials and construction: Lower floors are generally constructed of masonry so that the plan can easily follow the irregular contour of streets. Foundations of waterfront houses were made from cut-stone (Yalçın, 1998). The upper floor constructed of timber frame, with infill of earth or brick covered in plaster and roofs are sloped and covered with tiles. Timber above is used to create the regular rectangular rooms. The houses have cantilevered projections over the streets. (a) (b) Figure 7. The cross section and plan of the house with Two Sections house. Bechhoefer & Yalçın (1991) Figure 8. Building examples of outer sofa type with garden (a), and inner sofa type with inner courtyard (b). Adem & Çağdaş (2018) Figure 9. Different types of planning layout for Yalıboyu houses. Güzelci (2012) Figure 10. Yalıboyu Houses looking toward the river. Güzelci (2012). Figure 11. House with garden and anging landscape. Amasya Valiligi (2006) Figure 12. House with well. Amasya Valiligi (2006) Figure 13. Men room. Amasya Valiligi (2006) Famous for the historic architecture and scenic beauty, Berat is also known as the "Town of one over another Window”, or another version: “The town of thousand windows". This due to the large windows of old houses overlooking the town. According to Pashako (2012): “The origin of the “Albanian house” belongs to the 15th century. Consequently the formation of the basic typology is related with the agricultural economy and spaces needed for this kind of society.” Spatial organization: In Berat, there are three categories of houses (Bace, Meksi & Reza, 1988): 1-The house with "çardak"; 2-the house with "half floor"; and 3-the houses of the 19th century. The common compositional characters of the house consists of two store building. The entrance to the house is done through the garden. Similarly with Turkish houses the garden has multi-function such as; creating privacy between street and the house connection to the nature as well as growing of vegetables and fruits. While studying the floor plans of the houses three main areas were identified (Fig.14): 1.Cardak (porch-which plays the function of the sofa) and Hayat- Seating area connected to the sofa; 2. “oda”/fire place referring to the rooms; and 3. Service area: kitchen/storage/bathroom. The lower floor under the ground has two spaces: kitchen and storage which can be accessed from hayat under the stairs. In upper floor is located “cardak” and the rooms accessing to it. Cardak has several functions, such as connecting surface, living during the hot season and place for the manufacturing of agricultural products. This type is designed for wealthy families and particularly landowners who lived from feudal revenues. Meksi, Reza & Bace (2011). Fireplaces (Fig.17) are a very important feature of the rooms. In the corner of “cardak”, the “divan” (Fig.20) seating corner is located. The guest room is clearly separated from the other rooms. Views: The dwellings of this center are bounded by placing the main view towards the river. On the front side usually is created an extension through the projecting of the wooden facades with typical bow windows, spread throughout the Ottoman cultural influence area and here called “erkeri”. Landscape: All units, both in inner spaces and outer units of the houses are connected and therefore complete each other. Planting in private gardens hangs out over the street, softening the already humane scale of the neighborhood (Fig.16). The response to the temperate climate has been to create rooms which can be opened to breezes in the summer and closed for warmth in the relatively mild winter. Decoration: The house interior is quite rich in decoration and furniture. The application of wood is quite massive. In floor finishes, in the ceiling finishes (Fig.18) as well as in the openings or other furniture. Furnitures are built-in closed in the wall. Materials and construction: The construction of the house in Berat uses materials and techniques identical in all types (Samimi, 1971). The ground floor (basement) is always in bearing walls. The upper floors can be completely in load-bearing masonry with the addition of light structures such as "the erkeri" or in bearing timber wall. The large wooden roof roofs and covered with tiles (Fig.16) is one of the most characteristic elements of the house and is distinguished by the numerous folds and the large overhang of the eaves. Figure 14. Floor plans of Berat House with “cardak”. (Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) Figure 14. Perspective view of the house. (Meksi, Reza & Bace, 2011) Figure 14. Front façade looking to the river side. (Source: Meksi, Reza,Bace,2011) Figure 15. House garden entrance covered with landscape. (Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) Figure 16. Roof covered with tiles (Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) Figure 17. A typical fireplace. (Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) Figure 18. Timber ceiling ornamentation. (Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) Figure 19. Perspective view of “divani” (Source: Meksi, Reza & Bace,2011) 5. Conclusion It can be summarized that these two well preserved cities bear witness to the wealth and diversity of the urban and architectural heritage of their region. Being under the administration of Ottoman Empire for hundreds years, make them to have similar architectural elements. The cities terrain is quite alike, hilly with river dividing the town into two parts. Their evolution under Ottoman rule initiated interconnection in history timeline, demographic patterns, socio economical life, urban layout and residential architecture. Together Amasya and Berat bear outstanding testimony to various types of urban housing developed during Ottoman period. Both have been adapted to suit the town's life styles, with tiered houses on the slopes, horizontal in layout, and make abundant use of the entering daylight. The houses layout in both areas have similarities in terms of spatial layout, response to social structure, construction methods and finishes, building orientation and climate response. Besides, there were few differences such as in terms of city layout, Amasya has developed the Waterfront houses concept, while Berat has the main roads next to the river side, or Amasya’s houses some of them might have inner courtyard, while Berat houses have gardens. These two cities are a role examples to be followed in terms of urban and architectural development. Both cities have respected the condition of terrain, and following its planning model based on the topography. For example Amasya has a linear development, while Berat is more organic and has curvilinear pattern. It is to be appraised the response to the culture by planning the spatial organization as regard to the different function of the spaces as well as climate response such as full use of daylight, green landscape, and entrance location. For a more comprehensive comparative studies between these two cities, site visit is required and further researches need to take place in the future in order to fully understand the city urban context and how this model can be applied and fitted into today modern city needs. References Acun, F. (2002). A portrait of Ottoman Cities. The Muslim World, Vol.92: 255-281. Adem,P,C, Çağdaş,G.(2018). Interpretation of urban data in the complex pattern of traditional city: The case of Amasya. Itu Az. Vol. 15, No.1:23-38 Akın, N. (2001). Balkanlarda Osmanlı Dönemi Konutları, Literatür: Yayıncılık, İstanbul. Amasya Valiliği. (2006). Tarihin Tanigi,Amasya-Bearing witness to history. Ankara, Türkiye. Baçe, A., Meksi,A., Riza,E. (1988). Berati, history and architecture [Berati. History and Architecture]. 8 Nentori: 81. Barillet, C., Joffroy, T., & Longuet, I. (2006). Cultural heritage and local development. Convention France - UNESCO. Bechhoefer, W., Yalçin, A. K. (1991). Amasya, Turkey: Lessons in Urbanity. Mimar Journal, Vol. 40: 24-29 Beyazit, N. (2014). Social and cultural change of traditional Safranbolu houses in 35 years”. ISVS - 7th International Seminar on Vernacular Settlements. Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Cerasi, M. M. (1999). Osmanlı Kenti Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Mimarisi [Ottoman City Urban Civilization and Architecture in 18th and 19th Centuries in The Ottoman Empire]”. Translated by A. Ataöv. Yapı Kredi Publications, İstanbul. Demirkaya, F. Ü., (2017). Spatial Reflections of Social Change: The Change of Urban Pattern in the Ottoman Era. Athens Journal of History. Vol. 3: 205-224 Eldem, S. H. (1984). Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi. Vol.1, Turizm Değerlerini Koruma Vakfı, Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası, İstanbul. Fontanier, V. (1830). Voyages en Orient, entrepris par Ordre du Gouvernement Français, de l'année 1821 à l'année 1829, ornés de Figures et d'une Carte, Paris, P. Mongie Aîné, 1829”, Gennadius Library - The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. http://eng.travelogues.gr/item.php?view=61762. Accessed 10 Dec 2018. Günay, R. (1999). Türk Ev Geleneği ve Safranbolu Evleri. Yapı Endüstri Merkezi. Yayınları, İstanbul. Güzelci, O. Z. (2012). Amasya Yaliboyu Evleri Üzerine Bir Biçim Grameri Çalişmasi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Istanbul.Turkey Jennings, R. C.(1976).Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 7. No. 1: 21-57. Jigyasu, R., & Arora, V. (2013). Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas. Rits-DMUCH, Japan. Küçükerman, Ö. (1996). Kendi Mekanının Arayışı İçinde Türk Evi. Türkiye Turing Ve Otomobil Kurumu. İstanbul. Türkiye Meksi, A., Riza, E., Baçe. A. (2011).Berati historia dhe arkitektura [Berati. History and Architecture]. Albanian Science Academy. Tirana, Albania. Official Website of Berat. Berat history. http://bashkiaberat.gov.al/historia/ Accessed 10 January 2018. Pashako, F. (2012). Knowing in order to preserve and enhance historic architectures: the case study of Berat. 1st ICAUD International Conference in Architecture and Urban Design Epoka University, Tirana, Albania. Pashako,F. (2014). Diatopic Comparison of the Ottoman House in Balkan Area. 2nd ICAUD International Conference in Architecture and Urban Design Epoka University, Tirana, Albania. Samimi, G. (1971). Disa te dhena mbi tekniken e ndertimit te baneses beratase [Some data on technical construction of Berat houses]. Monumentet: 173-175