Ciler Kirsan Gebze Institute of Technology, Turkey University College London, UK

1. “Is it a Greek or a Turkish House? A Comparative Morphological Enquiry into the Domestic Spaces of Coexistence in the Island of Cyprus” greek greek turkish turkish greek turkish Ciler KirsanGebze Institute of Technology, TurkeyUniversity College London, UK ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

2. how and to what extent were ethnic divisions reflected in the domestic cultures of two ethnic groups, namely: Turkish and Greek Cypriots, in the Island of Cyprus? greek greek turkish turkish greek turkish research question ... ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

3. problem background ... • Greek and Turkish Cypriots, • symbiotic coexistence (1571-1955) -distributed all over the Island- SPATIAL PROXIMITY - in mixed or nearby villages • confrontation (1955-1974) -due to ethnic conflict situation- GRADUAL SEPARATION • physical separation in 1974 -cross-ethnic occupation- DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN GROUPS – Turks to the NORTH; Greeks to the SOUTH With this study I try to explain what it is that makes a house ‘Greek’ or ‘Turkish’ for the years of ethnic cohabitation ? Is there a distinction as ‘Greek house’ or ‘Turkish house’ ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

4. theory and methodology ... • ‘Space Syntax’ • An analyticalgraph-based theory of architecture; • Also a morphological analysis toolfor the analysis of the built forms to better understand the relationship between house form and culture; • the empirical studies in the field have shown that cultural and social information are primarily embedded in and transmitted with abstract structures called ‘configuration’ underlying spatial layouts. • This information is extracted with a key value called ‘integration’ which is a measure of spatial configuration. • Hanson defines integration simply as ‘….the extent to which the layout draws people and things together or keeps them apart ’ or as, ‘… a powerful predictor of how busy or quiet a space is likely to be ’. ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

5. theory and methodology... • One of the most essential tools for the investigation of spatial configuration is ‘justified access graphs’. • The measures of ‘integration’ and other syntactic properties are calculated from these graphs • Since the value is calculated based on the accessibility relations present in a system, houses whose spaces are overlinked will be ‘more integrated’ and those which have less connections will be ‘lessintegrated’ or ‘segregated’. • ‘highly integrated’ house: a spatial layout which tends to bring people together; • ‘segregated’ houses: to keep people apart.. • The value of integration ranges between 0 and slightly above 1 • Low values = high integration; • high values = low integration or segregation • Since these properties are expressed with numbers the technique is especially efficient in comparisons of different cultures primarily because instead of descriptive definitions more concrete and culture-specific results are obtained and the numbers enable even the minor differences to be captured. ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

6. Sample and the analysis ... • The analysis is based on a comparative study of the spatial layouts of 30Greek and 36Turkish houses from the Mesarion Region in Northern Cyprus. • The procedure adopted is; • the search for invariants or regularities in spatial patterning underneath the surface appearances of these houses which are invisible to naked eye and thus difficult to establish from a purely qualitative accountand • then investigation of the way and the degree these vary across the ethnic groups • The exploration of patterns among Greek and Turkish Cypriot houses should have been based on data upto 1974 when both groups were in spatial proximity. • Scarcity of records of these houses have necessitated the collection of data through a field study - house layouts have been recorded retrospectively from their present situations with the help of unstructured interviews, observations and personal reasoning. • The plans have then been abstracted in the form of ‘justified access graphs’, and calculations of syntactic properties have been made automatically with the help of computer programs developed for this purpose ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

7. vernacular houses in Cyprus greek greek turkish greek turkish turkish • all courtyard houses • simple rectangular geometry – • Appear in numerous forms – heterogeneity and complexity • Minimal main living unit + ancillary spaces (livestock, agricultural equipment and storage)- agricultural economy - self sufficient households • ‘workshop’-’laboratory’ • multi-functional minimal living spaces - not specific functions • similar spatial ingredients in both ethnic groups -Courtyards -closed/semi-closed central spaces -rooms -secondary spaces as kitchens, storages, stables... ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

8. convex analysis... C R L Mean Int with exterior = 1.112 Mean Int wout exterior = 1.193 1.778 1.682 1.201 1.153 1.153 1.345 1.105 1.297 0.625 0.721 0.769 1.201 0.529 1.009 ‘NEW WAVE’ UPPER FLOOR PLAN JUSTIFIED ACCESS GRAPH ‘PESH’ GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1. ‘spatial’ cyard <loggia < ext < m.room < kitchen < m.room (up) 0,529 0,6251,009 1,153 1,297 1,682 Mean Integration 2. Living < Cooking < Reception 1,153 1,297 1,682 ‘spatio-functional’ 3. ‘Difference Factors’ ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

9. What are the spatial genotypes prevailing in the sample ? ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

10. spatial themes... The analysis of 66 houses individually have shownthat: • ‘COURTYARD-INTEGRATED’ (85%) • ‘CENTRAL SPACE - INTEGRATED’ (15%) • These themes do NOT correspond to ethnicity. • Both ethnic groups are found to be dominantly ‘courtyard-integrated’ ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

11. ‘what do these themes imply configurationally? configurational propertieshave been investigated by using the difference factors • ‘Courtyard-integrated’ ‘courtyard’ is the key structuring element which structures not only the relations among ‘living spaces’ by bringing them together but also links them with the ‘secondary work-related functions’ (of household economy)and to the ‘exterior’. ‘Central spaces’ whenever appear serve to separate the ‘main living functions’ from the ‘secondary ones’. earlier houses – agricultural economy based on peasantry –traditional rural life • ‘Central space-integrated’ ‘Central space’, as the key element of the overall configuration overtakes the structuring role of courtyard and ‘courtyard’ is more of a separator for the main living spaces and the secondary ones within the configuration. later houses – transformation of economy into mechanised agriculture - changes in lifestyles to meet the demands of modernisation led to the abandonce of courtyard functions ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

12. How does the dominant ‘courtyard - integrated’ ( 85% ) theme vary across the two ethnic groups? ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

13. comparisons... • TURKISHcourtyard < central space < kitchen < rooms(g) < ext < rooms(u) • GREEKcourtyard < central space < kitchen < ext < rooms(g) < rooms(u) Although both are ‘courtyard-integrated’, there are some differences in the inequalities (spatial ordering) underlying the houses Common tendencyin both groups: • courtyards, central spaces, kitchens are on the integrated; whereas rooms on the segregated side of the mean. Differencebetween Greek and Turkish Mesarion Houses: • Greeks have a more extended integrated end; • ‘exterior’, tend to integrate more with Greek houses, and remain more segregated across Turkish houses. Mean Intg Mean Intg ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

14. comparisons... ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

15. comparative results... • Mean Integration • Greek houses (mean int=1.035)are slightly more integrated than Turkish (mean int=1.062) • Spatial patterns • Both are found to be the products of same dominant spatial theme: ‘courtyard-integrated’;However the theme seem to vary between the two groups so that: • ‘courtyard’ has a more powerful role in structuring the Turkish House; • Greeks are more ‘exterior-oriented’ than Turkish houses; • Turkish houses have more structure embedded whereas Greeks are more homogenised in terms of spatial patterning • ‘central space’ whenever appear under this theme, is more powerful in structuring main living and secondary functions across Turkish houses compared to Greeks • Spatio-Functional patterns • Greeks are dominantly ‘living-integrated’, whereas • Turkish houses are equally ‘cooking’ and ‘living-integrated’ with cooking-intergated ones slightly dominating over living-integrated houses. However these functional tendencies are found to be NOT strong and consistent (because of the weak differences found) to point to distinct domestic cultures for the groups. • Although the resulting patterns have rules of ethnicity, the t-tests suggest that ethnic variations are not striking except for ‘Exterior’ which is significantly more integrated with Greek houses. ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

16. interpretative speculation... • It is thought that the similar rural lifestyles based on agricultural economy have been built into the configuration of both ethnic groups and have led to the dominant ‘courtyard-integrated’ theme; • And a possible cultural influence between thegroups due to their long term coexistence is likely that has also contributed to their similarspatial cultures. • However, the unsignificant differences as, Turkish being more segregated, less exterior-oriented, more structured and dominantly cooking-integrated is meaningful and can be interpreted in two ways: ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

17. interpretative speculation... • One can be related to the still maintained differences in the social structures of the two communities which might have led to more hierarchy in Turkish families and render their houses more structured. DIFFERENT SOCIAL STRUCTURES • The other speculation is made regarding the ethnic conflict situation. It is again well known by historical records that during the conflict situation Turkish people withdrew itself into disconnected enclaves and had led an introverted life with the feeling of insecurity emanating from their minority status. In the meantime they have also experienced serious political and economical difficulties. It is likely that this introverted life style has caused the houses of this group to develop as more closed to the outside world. ETHNIC CONFLICT SITUATION However these factors could NOT produce completely different spatial themes for each ethnic group but rather produce variations of a single dominant spatial theme. It seems that ethnicity do NOT have clear, significant implications in the spatial constitution of their domestic spaces. And that the terms ‘Greek House’ or ‘Turkish House’ are likely to have been created artificially with political and nationalistic concerns resulting from ethnic conflict situation. ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence

18. End of presentationThank you! ‘is it a Greek or a Turkish House?’ a comparative morphological enquiry into the domestic spaces of coexistence