Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas Peninsula of Cyprus

*Marko Kiessel, Ahmet M. Saymanlier and Yasemin Mesda* 

#### **Abstract**

 This paper introduces the heritage of rural vernacular architecture in the surroundings of Aphendrika in the northern coastal plain of the Karpas Peninsula. Forty-six dilapidated stone buildings are grouped into two hamlets within a protected zone, in between remains ranging from the Neolithic to the post-Byzantine periods. Dating possibly back to the nineteenth century and still used in the twentieth century, their orientation probably reflects an ancient cadastral system. The use of *spolia* is indicated by the standardized ancient measurements of ashlars. The buildings were documented by standard and advanced methods and analyzed in accordance with the existing scholarship on Cypriot vernacular architecture and landscape. The detached, one-story, and flat-roofed buildings with one or two rooms represent a basic house type in contrast to courtyard houses in traditional villages. Widespread on the northern coastal plains, they served seasonal agricultural activities of the inhabitants from nearby villages. Additions of a second room may indicate the separation of living space from animal shelter, besides attesting to different levels of occupation or wealth. The area of Aphendrika displays a continuity of rural settlement from antiquity to the twentieth century. The endangered recent stratigraphy of heritage lacks conservation projects and hence the importance of documentation and analysis.

**Keywords:** Cyprus, historical site, rural architecture, vernacular architecture, heritage recording

#### **1. Introduction**

 This research investigates the endangered heritage of rural vernacular architecture in the surroundings of Aphendrika and Exarkhos Bay in the northeast of the Karpas Peninsula of Cyprus—a map of the latter being displayed in [1]— where the authors have been conducting a survey of cultural heritage since 2016. It deals with 46 abandoned and dilapidated stone buildings (**Figure 1**).

The site Aphendrika, east of the inland village Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz, is situated in a narrow alluvial plain between the northern coast and a low southern ridge which is the continuation of the mountain range Pentadaktylos which runs eastwest parallel to the northern coastline about 80 miles from the Kyrenia area into the Karpas Peninsula, as shown in [1, 2].

#### *ISBS 2019 - 4th International Sustainable Buildings Symposium*

 Aphendrika can possibly be identified with the ancient coastal settlement Urania [3, 4] and is part of a protected archeological area. In its surroundings remains of harbor structures and tombs, of the Byzantine Panayia Chrysiotissa, Asomatos, and other churches, of oil mills and small artifacts range from the Neolithic period to at least the post-Byzantine era (**Figure 2**). These attest to busy ancient and medieval rural settlements of which only some of the church buildings and one ancient coastal cemetery have been investigated prior to 2016 [5, 6]. A few kilometers to the west, as shown in [7], north of Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz, another ancient coastal town, Carpasia, and its Byzantine Ayios Philon church can be encountered [8].

The land use in the area of Aphendrika corresponded possibly to the prevalent system of "smallholding peasantry" during the Ottoman rule in Cyprus in the

#### **Figure 1.**

*Distribution of rural seasonal settlements and other remains in the area of Aphendrika (Google Earth, edited by authors).* 

#### **Figure 2.**

*Aphendrika (area C). Distribution of rural buildings, close to the Panayia Chrysiotissa (1), Asomatos (2), and Agios Georgios (3) churches (Google Earth, edited by authors).* 

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

nineteenth century, which in most cases did not mean ownership but right of occupancy as most of the land belonged to the sultan (*Miri* land) [9–11]. However, the reforms of the empire in the nineteenth century led to a slow process of conversion from landholding into private landowning [10].

 Of large agricultural estates, *çiftliks*, typical in the Ottoman world, about 70 existed in Cyprus in 1863, ranging from 700 to 7000 acres. They produced mainly for export and were based on tenant farmers or dependant agricultural laborers [10, 11] and are evidence of a "Cypriot-Ottoman elite" [12] (p. 47). As to architectural remains, the best-preserved examples of estates are the (multiple) courtyard complexes of Kouklia and Potamia in southwestern Cyprus [12, 13]. Apart from these large estates, farmsteads are unknown in Cyprus [1]. Instead, landholders from the villages would cultivate dispersed plots on different types of soil.

The majority of Cypriot villages are based on agriculture, and it appears that the origins of a majority of these villages go back to the Middle Ages, at least. All are located in a considerable distance to the coast, probably due to the danger of piracy, like the closest village to Aphendrika, Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz. The history of settlements suggests that upon arrival, the Turks, first and foremost, settled in the central plain, the Mesaoria, and in the coastal plains [1].

Seasonal settlements have hardly been investigated. They are associated with "cereal production as well as pastoralism" [13]. Often, they can be found close to the villages [1]. Characteristically, during the Ottoman and early British colonial periods, they consisted of smaller detached buildings in contrast to the densely agglutinated villages and typically lack communal institutions such as churches, although exceptions due to historical reasons do exist [13].

 Most of the 46 buildings in the plain are grouped into 2 small hamlets which can be addressed as seasonal settlements. They are built close to and partially on top of older remains and might date back to the nineteenth century, according to cartographic data [14]. The buildings, which—due to few traces of concrete—must have been in use well into the twentieth century, must have been deserted for some time when we consider the buildings' present state of preservation. Due to the latter 28 buildings, 12 in area C and 16 in area E have been chosen for a more detailed documentation through standard techniques, 3D scanner and/or aerial photography (**Figure 1**).

#### **2. The rural buildings and the area of Aphendrika**

#### **2.1 Sources**

The site (and its surroundings) was settled by Turks after the conquest of Cyprus in 1571 and named "Efendiler" ("lords") from which the name Aphendirga/ Aphendrika/Afentrika derives. It belonged to one of about 70 *çiftliks* which were established in Cyprus during the Turkish era according to [15], who refers to old documents (for the number of 70 estates also, see [10, 11]).

The origins of the visible remains of the settlements date back to at least the nineteenth century, according to the cartographic survey of the Karpas by Kitchener in 1882 which clearly shows several detached buildings at Aphendrika (area C) and Exarkhos Bay (area E) [14]. However, it remains unclear if the map of Kitchener displays the present buildings or an older phase of the settlements as can be observed, for example, below building C1 (**Figure 3a**).

Enlart, however, noticed nothing at Aphendrika at the end of the nineteenth century except the fourteenth-century chapel, built into the remains of the earlyto-mid Byzantine Panayia Chrysiotissa (**Figure 2**), and two huts for temporary

**Figure 3.** 

*Aphendrika (area C) (photos by authors). (a) Building C1, from east. (b) Ancient structures next to the old harbor. Aerial survey, from east.* 

occupation, one for the keeper of the chapel and another for shepherds during the summer [16]. It can be questioned if this rough description of the site in a text which focuses on church architecture is helpful for dating the remains of the existing rural buildings. Hogarth's description of the site in 1888 mentions "a cluster of huts" [3] (p. 85) in sector C but leaves it to one's imagination if this meant "in use." Considering that he had traveled westward from Cape Dinaretum on the north coast and must have passed the location of sector E, his description may be a sign of complete disinterest of a nineteenth-century scholar of antiquity and medieval heritage, or it may be a proof of the temporary or permanent abandonment of the settlements on Kitchener's map.

 Archimandrite Kyprianos describes Famagusta and the Karpas in 1788 as *vakıf*, a pious foundation, the income being dedicated to Medine Mosque in Constantinopolis, Istanbul [10]. At some point the *vakıf* had changed because, according to oral information from the Evkaf, the administration of *vakıf* property, before 1974 the land around Aphendrika was *vakıf* dedicated to Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque in Famagusta, while the land and the settlements were used by Greek and Turkish Cypriots [9]. The latter information may confirm the type of "smallholding peasantry," as mentioned above, in the area. And it confirms that at least some of the buildings were in use (if not built) in the twentieth century.

#### **2.2 The orientation of the buildings within the landscape**

 The buildings in the coastal plain of the Aphendrika area are built close to and partially on top of older remains (**Figure 3a**). The present orientation of the fields, field boundaries (bushes), and rural buildings displays the same pattern: they are obviously arranged parallel or perpendicular to the coastline and to the course of the southern ridge, the eastern extension of the Pentadaktylos Mountains of the Kyrenia area (**Figures 1** and **2**). The nearly linear course of the Roman road, leading from the southwest to the northeast, is estimated just at the bottom of the ridge, passing through the settlement at Aphendrika [4], so that the present field boundaries would also be parallel or perpendicular to the Roman road, corresponding to the Roman *Decumanus* and *Cardo*, respectively. The Panayia Chrysiotissa and Asomatos churches deviate slightly further from the general southwest/northeast orientation (and therefore from the course of the coastline and the ridge) as a more precise east-west orientation of their naves was required. As the fields of the plain on top of the southern ridge and several ancient, partially unexcavated wall structures close to the old harbor, which have been recorded also by aerial surveys, display the same orientation (**Figures 1** and **3b**), we may suggest that the present parcellation reflects an ancient system of cadastres, as outlined, for example, for England and Libya [17, 18].

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

#### **2.3 Typology, plan, space, and domestic facilities**

The detached, single-story, and formerly flat-roofed stone buildings consist of one or two rooms which are oriented on the (sometimes only slightly) longer southwest/northeast axis (**Figures 4** and **5**).

Traces of roof support such as wooden posts or stone arches on this longer axis (Ionas types B–C) [1] have not been observed, but due to debris and vegetation in the interiors, the existence of two wooden posts (Ionas, type B) cannot be ruled out (**Figure 6**). On the contrary, the width of the buildings between 5.20 and 6.20 m suggests the former existence of a wooden roof support as in Ionas type B. The exterior length of individual rooms varies from 4.80 to 10.50 m. The original heights of the walls are often not preserved, but the value 2.20–30 m can be estimated on the basis of three confirmed examples (**Figure 7a**).

The entrances are placed centrally on the longer sides of the buildings (**Figures 4**, **5**, and **7b**). In cases of a single entrance, the buildings are always equipped with the door on the south side, and they are typical for area C as is the single-room building (11–12 of 14). The south door reflects the climatic role of the outer hall (portico) of village buildings which are typically oriented toward the south in order to make use of the sun, according to [19]. The interior activity of single-door buildings may be divided into either space flanking the central entrance or into a front and rear space.

#### **Figure 4.**

*Aphendrika (area C). Schematic plans of traditional buildings. Not to scale: wall thickness and distance of exterior facilities to the buildings (drawing by authors).* 

#### **Figure 5.**

*Exarkhos Bay (area E). Schematic plans of traditional buildings. Not to scale: wall thickness and distance of exterior facilities to the buildings (drawing by authors).* 

The detached single-door buildings of the Aphendrika area can be classified as *dichoro* which displays a spatial division between the front and rear (Ionas type B with wooden roof support on the longer axis). The *dichoro* is typical in the Cypriot village tradition, being one of the two local near-eastern types of *breitraum*. The other, without wooden roof support on the longer axis, is called *macrinari*  which allows spatial activities on the right and left of the central entrance [1, 20]. Dinçyürek classifies these types as "single-unit" house; however, he includes also buildings with two opposite doors [21].

 The existence of two opposite doors, however, rather excludes the typical spatial division of the *dichoro*, between the front and rear: instead, this system is the simple version of an "inner hall," flanked by rooms on either side—which occurs typically again in village buildings. Ionas and Dinçyürek missed this typological relation

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

#### **Figure 6.**

*Exarkhos Bay (area E). Building E8. View onto the collapsed north wall (photo by authors).* 

#### **Figure 7.**

*Exarkhos Bay (area E) (photos by authors). (a) Building E1. South side, from southeast. (b) Building E1. The enclosed space on the east side is not a room. Note the collapsed wall of the western room in comparison to the earlier situation in (a). Aerial survey, from south.* 

 [1, 19], in our opinion. The house type with two opposite doors, without and with roof support on the longer axis, is typical for the Karpas, according to [1], who classifies it as *macrinari* and *dichoro*, respectively. In terms of space, the term *macrinari*  is also appropriate for buildings with opposite doors because of the evident division of spatial activity right and left of the central entrance(s).

Two opposite doors are confirmed for only three buildings of area C, whereas three cases are unclear. In contrast, opposite doors have been recorded in 13 of 16 buildings of sector E (**Figures 4** and **5**). Similarly, with eight examples the tworoom type occurs most frequently there (**Figures 5, 7a** and **b**). It always displays two building phases, the younger room being added to the west or east and its stone material not being interlocked with the walls of phase 1. In area C two of the possibly three two-room buildings were built most probably in one phase, like C4 (**Figure 4**).

Windows are generally scarce. In sector C none were documented, but in sector E, they occur in the second-phase rooms of buildings E1, E2, E7, and E9 and in the first-phase rooms of E3, E11, and E16 (**Figure 8a**).

The chimney shafts of all seven inner fireplaces in area C were built on top of two corbels, simple stone blocks protruding out of the wall, and the only trace of the chimneys preserved (**Figure 4**), whereas in area E, 9 of 16 chimney shafts are inserted into the wall in a form of a niche between partially decorated corbels (chimney type B [1]) (**Figure 8b**). Additional seven corner chimneys on corbels have been observed (**Figure 9a**), while two-room building E9 is the only one equipped with both types. All fireplaces and their chimneys in area E have been built at the southern side of the rooms, whereas in area C, four of the seven occur at the east wall (**Figures 4** and **5**). Apart from the fireplaces, not much can be said

#### **Figure 8.**

*Exarkhos Bay (area E) (photos by authors). (a) Building E3. West wall. (b) Building E7. Chimney niche, decorated corbels, remains of plaster, and shelves in the corner. View into southeast corner of room 1.* 

**Figure 9.** 

*Exarkhos Bay (area E) (photos by authors). (a) Building E1. East room. Southwest corner. Remains of a corner fireplace with chimney. (b) Building E15. Exterior oven, from west.* 

 about the interior facilities due to debris and vegetation. Seven of the eight twophase buildings were built "winter-fit" already in the first phase, whereas building E13 was equipped with an additional winter room in a second phase.

 With only two cases, exterior ovens are scarce in area C, while private wells have not been found at all. Probably water sources like the (certainly ancient) cistern west of and the well southeast of building C1 were communally used. Ovens exist on the north side of the buildings, whereas the 10 examples of area E are placed in the first building phases at the southeast or southwest corners (7/2 times) and once in front of the south door (**Figures 4**, **5, 7b,** and **9b**). In contrast to area C, private wells, usually at the southwest corner, are more frequent in area E with 11 examples. The obviously standardized position of ovens and wells may help in finding these facilities in case they have not been discovered yet. To date, latrines have not been discovered.

 The enlargement to a two-room building, as observed frequently in area E, may indicate the separation of living space from animal shelter. Additionally, it may attest—like the frequently recorded exterior ovens, wells, and inner fireplaces with chimney—to a different level of wealth compared to area C. However, possibly these data simply prove a lower level of occupation in area C, considering the report of Enlart about the site Aphendrika, mentioned above.

#### **2.4 Material and technique**

 In the Cypriot vernacular tradition, walls are usually built in a "shell technique" and are 40–60 cm wide [1]. The walls of the investigated buildings, however, do not display this technique. Instead they typically consist of limestone, sandstone, and calcarenite ashlar (and rubble) blocks of approximately 45 cm width which constitutes the complete width of the walls (**Figures 6** and **9a**). In our opinion, this fact is a clue for the reuse of ancient building material. Another clue is the

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

 obviously standardized recurring measurements of these ashlars (values 40, 45/50, 85, **90/95/100** cm length; 35, 40, **45/50** cm width; 16/17, **23/25**, 33/35, 50 cm height). The measurements can also be observed in ancient remains on the eastern side of the old harbor (45/50, 90/95 cm length; 45/50 cm width; 23, 33 cm height) (**Figure 10**) and in the vaulted phases of the Panayia Chrysiotissa church (45/55, 90/95/100 cm length; 45 cm width; 23, 45 cm height) and of the Asomatos church (50, 75/80 cm length; 40, 50 cm width; 23 cm height) for which the blocks were either reused or newly hewn. The two churches have been recently reinvestigated, and their vaulted phases were dated to the eighth century [6]. The ashlars in the harbor are difficult to date; however, stratigraphically they are older than the rubblestone quay on the southern side of the harbor (**Figure 3b**) which we can safely attribute to the fifth to seventh centuries thanks to ceramic evidence.

Finally, the measurements occur in several hardly datable nearby softstone quarries (of limestone, sandstone, calcarenite), although additional values (70, 110/115/120 cm length; 55/58, 60/62/65 cm width) can be observed (**Figures 1, 11a** and **b**). In defunct quarries elsewhere on the island which are said to be of relatively recent date, again similar values can be observed: vertical channels were recorded, 120 cm distant, 7 cm wide, and 90 cm deep, hewn on three sides of the to-be-extracted blocks while undercutting them horizontally from the open quarry face [1].

The technique of quarrying, as visible in the area of Aphendrika, is therefore not necessarily ancient. But the cases of Egyptian quarries, for example, have shown that the hardstone and softstone quarrying techniques, which had been developed by the time of the Roman period (using iron chisels, picks, and wedges), had not essentially changed before the twentieth century [22]. Considering the data discussed, we may assume that the use of ancient measurements in the eastern part of the Karpas Peninsula (and possibly beyond) continued beyond antiquity, possibly until the twentieth century.

#### **2.5 Agricultural facilities**

Traces of animal shelters such as originally built-in mangers or basins for animal fodder exist in the single-room/single-door buildings C3, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, and E6, usually at the northern wall. Four of these buildings are also equipped with a fireplace with a chimney at the south or east wall, a fact that proves that a fireplace is not a certain sign for a purely domestically used building. In all other buildings, the debris and vegetation do not allow further observations. Remarkable is the circumstance that almost all traces of mangers derive from area C.

#### **Figure 10.**

*Aphendrika (area C). East side of the old harbor. Remains of the ancient wall, from north (photo by authors).* 

**Figure 11.** 

*Aphendrika (area C) (photos by authors). (a) Quarry west of the old harbor. Aerial survey, from north. (b) Quarry west of the old harbor. The extracted blocks on the left measure about 120 cm in length, from north.* 

Threshing floors as a safe indicator of agricultural activity [13] have not been observed, but they may have been destroyed by contemporary agricultural practices. Indicators of an agricultural intensification such as water mills [12] did not exist in the area.

#### **3. Type of settlement, land use, and possible traces of an estate**

The detached character of the coastal buildings in the Aphendrika area can be also observed in the villages of the Karpas, just as in Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz where the detached houses are situated within gardens as the Kitchener survey of 1882 demonstrates [14]. This stands in contrast to the densely agglutinated village buildings elsewhere on the island [1]. The differences between the hamlets at Aphendrika/Exarkhos Bay and the Karpas villages are the coastal/inland location, the number of buildings, and the missing communal institutions although the fourteenth-century chapel of the Panayia Chrysiotissa at Aphendrika was, according to Enlart [16], used from time to time in the nineteenth century.

The building type discussed above is widespread on the northeastern coastal plains (isolated or in little hamlets) and served seasonal pastoral and/or agricultural activities, possibly of "smallholding peasants" from nearby villages. Probably due to the increasing motorization of the island [23], the seasonal occupation of the land and therefore the buildings were abandoned from the 1950s onward.

According to [15] the area of Aphendrika belonged to a *çiftlik* after the Ottoman conquest of the island (see also [11]). The early type of *çiftliks* in Cyprus, of large agricultural estates, was *vakıf*, while the Karpas in general and the Aphendrika area specifically were reported to be *vakıf* in the eighteenth century and before 1974, respectively [9, 10]. These circumstances suggest that the area of Aphendrika/ Exarkhos Bay may have been part of a *vakıf çiftlik* [11] for most of the time, until the twentieth century.

Traces of architectural remains of an estate to which Aphendrika might have belonged can possibly be seen in parts of the restored tourism complex called "Arch House" in Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz about which no historical information could be retrieved so far. Dinçyürek and Olgaç Türker [24] inform only about its restoration and adaptive reuse. Its prominent feature is a two-story gateway, built with stone and joined with lateral single-story stone buildings which might have constituted the southern side of a courtyard (**Figure 12**). It is reminiscent of the representative two-story gateway of the estate of Kouklia that leads to an irregular central square enclosed by buildings on four sides. It is one of the few betterknown examples of the generally hardly studied architectural remains of estates [12, 13]. The two-story gateway, however, is a common element in the Cypriot

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

**Figure 12.**  *Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz. Southern gateway of the touristic "Arch House" complex, from north (photo by authors).* 

 vernacular (adobe) tradition: it occurs frequently with agglutinated courtyard complexes where the courts and the individual buildings are accessible only via this "vestibule" [1] (p. 53). This element alone, therefore, is not an indication for the architectural design of an estate unless other diagnostic elements can be observed, such as elaborate material (predominantly ashlar instead of rubblestone and mudbrick can be verified), decorativeness (molded frames of arches, doors, windows, and corbels can also be verified), and "a manor house or konak, residential spaces for laborers, stables, storage buildings, water mills, bakeries and smithies" [13]. A manor house, laborer's accommodation, and some of the other functions might be identifiable by vernacular buildings in the close environment next and north of the gateway. The possible manor house, equipped with another gateway, is situated opposite of the southern gateway, on the northern side of a possibly former square which might never have been fully enclosed. However, the Karpas survey of Kitchener in 1882 does not show an ensemble of apparently closely associated buildings in Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz as existing on site [14]. Therefore, these architectural traces might go back to the end of the nineteenth or beginning of the twentieth centuries, regardless of whether they were part of one complex and if this complex was an estate. The details require more historical and architectural research before the hypothetical assumptions made can be verified or falsified, considering also that some of the "vernacular" buildings of the touristic complex might actually not be original as photos of the site before and after "renovation" [24] indicate (**Figure 12**).

#### **4. Conclusion**

 After the Ottoman conquest of the island, the area of Aphendrika belonged to a *çiftlik*, commonly understood as a large agricultural estate. The early type of these *çiftliks* in Cyprus was *vakıf*. Moreover, the Karpas in general and the Aphendrika area specifically were reported to be *vakıf* in the eighteenth century and before 1974, respectively. These data suggest that the area may have been part of a *vakıf çiftlik* for most of the time. For the time being, traces of architectural remains of an estate to which Aphendrika might have belonged cannot safely be identified.

The architecture of the seasonal settlements in the Aphendrika area—which possibly dates back to the nineteenth century and which represents a widespread architectural type—attests to a local continuity of rural settlement, economy, and land use from antiquity to the twentieth century. Probably due to the increasing motorization, the land use in a form of seasonal settlements was abandoned from the 1950s onward. A rudimentary protection is provided for this most recent layer of heritage as the buildings are situated within a protected archeological area. Unfortunately, deterioration will continue due to a lack of conservation projects, hence the urgency of documentation.

The individual buildings, on the one hand, and the groups of buildings in areas C and E, on the other, show a remarkable variety in detail despite appearing to be identical at the first sight. It became obvious that area E provided more sophisticated house architecture than area C, evidenced by the number of two-room buildings, windows, interior fireplaces with chimney, and exterior ovens and wells. Typologically, the orientation of the entrances of the buildings to the south and north reveals the simple versions of elements of village architecture, of the "outer hall" and the "inner hall." Likewise, the detachment of the buildings can be observed in the vernacular architecture of the Karpas villages, in contrast to the densely agglutinated villages in other parts of Cyprus.

On the basis of findings, it is not possible to provide an exact explanation of whether the settlements were pastoral or agricultural or a mixture of both. Moreover, the number of six recorded mangers in area C compared to only one in area E raises questions as to where animals in area E were held, whether related to pastoralism or agriculture. Threshing floors as a safe indicator of agricultural activity have not been observed at all, neither by ground nor by aerial survey. Possibly they were destroyed by contemporary agricultural practices.

Because the present orientation of the fields, field boundaries (bushes), and rural buildings, in the coastal plain and on top of the southern ridge, displays the same pattern, as do several ancient wall structures and the presumed course of the Roman road, we may suggest that the present parcellation reflects an ancient cadastral system.

 The buildings display a construction technique using large amounts of ashlars which constitute the complete walls' thickness. This and the ashlars' standardized measurements which we have traced back to remains of several ancient buildings and nearby quarries demonstrate that *spolia* were used abundantly. Thanks to clues gathered from the quarries, we may assume that the use of ancient measurements in the eastern part of the Karpas Peninsula continued beyond antiquity, possibly until the twentieth century.

#### **Acknowledgements**

We would like to express our gratitude to the Department of Antiquities of Northern Cyprus, especially to Dr. Figen Caner, Dr. Elif Karaca, and Mr. Bilal Kızılkaya, for their continuous support of the Aphendrika survey project. Likewise, we would like to thank Mr. Mustafa Kemal Kasapoğlu of the Evkaf in Nicosia for providing valuable information. Last but not least, we thank Mr. Uğur Karagözlü of Arkin University of Creative Arts and Design, for proofreading this article.

*Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

#### **Author details**

Marko Kiessel1 \*, Ahmet M. Saymanlier2 and Yasemin Mesda2

1 Department of Industrial Design, Arkin University of Creative Arts and Design, Kyrenia, North Cyprus

2 Department of Interior Design, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

\*Address all correspondence to: marko.kiessel@arucad.edu.tr

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Ionas I. La Maison rurale à Chypre (xvme-xxe siècle). Aspects et Techniques de Construction. 2nd ed. Nicosia: Centre de Recherche Scientifique de Chypre; 2003. pp. 3, 6, 9-11, 17-20, 43-59, 136-138, 145-146, 170. ISBN: 9963-0-8012-X

[2] Keshishian KK. Famagusta, Town and District, Cyprus: A Survey of its People and Places from Ancient Times. Nicosia: Zavallis Press; 1985. pp. 15, 17. ISBN: 9963-567-50-9

[3] Hogarth DG. Devia Cypria: Notes of an Archaeological Journey in Cyprus in 1888. London: Henry Frowde, Amen Corner; 1889. p. 85

[4] Bekker-Nielsen T. The Roads of Ancient Cyprus. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen; 2004. pp. 167-168. ISBN: 8772899565

[5] Dray E, Du PlatTaylor J. Tsambres and Aphendrika: Two Classical and Hellenistic Cemeteries. Reports of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 1937- 1939. Vol. 1951. pp. 24-123

[6] Stewart CA. The first vaulted churches in Cyprus. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 2010;**2**:162-189. DOI: 10.1525/ jsah.2010.69.2.162

 [7] Mitford TB. In: Temporini H, editor. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Teil 2, Teilband 7, 2. DeGruyter; Roman Cyprus. 1980. pp. 1285-1384. ISBN: 978-3-11-086042-9

[8] Papageorghiou A. Cities and countryside at the end of antiquity and the beginning of the middle ages in Cyprus. In: Bryer AAM, Georghallides GS, editors. The Sweet Land of Cyprus. Papers Given at the 25th Jubilee Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,

Birmingham, 1991. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre; 1993. pp. 27-51. ISBN: 9963080243

[9] Interview with Mr. Mustafa Kemal Kasapoğlu of the Evkaf in Nicosia, Cyprus; 2019

[10] Katsiaounis R. Labour, Society and Politics in Cyprus during the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus XXIV. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre; 1996. pp. 29-30, 33-34. ISBN: 9963-0-8034-0

[11] Gazioğlu AC. The Turks in Cyprus. A Province of the Ottoman Empire (1571-1878). London: K. Rustem & Brothers; 1990. pp. 120-122. ISBN: 9963-565-13-1

[12] Given M, Hadjianastasis M. Landholding and landscape in Ottoman Cyprus. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 2010;**1**:38-60. ISSN 0307-0131

[13] Given M. Agriculture, settlement and landscape in Ottoman Cyprus. Levant. 2000;**1**:215-236

 [14] Kitchener HH. A Trigonometrical Survey of the Island of Cyprus, Executed under the Direction of Captain H. H. Kitchener, 1882. London: E. Stanford; 1885. 15 Map Sections; Section 2

 [15] Altan MH. Anadolu'nun Kıbrıs Türk Toplumuyla İlişkileri ve İskan Politikası; Bozkurt newspaper. 25th/27th Sept. 1987. p. 2

[16] Enlart C. Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus. 2nd ed. London: Trigraph Limited; 1987. p. 305. ISBN: 0947961011

[17] Peterson JWM. Computer aided investigation of ancient cadastres [PhD *Rural Vernacular Architecture and Ancient Settlements: The Case of Aphendrika in the Karpas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

thesis]. University of East Anglia; 1993. p. 135-196, 259-263

[18] Zocchi A. The periphery of Lepcis magna: New data related to the ancient road network and land partition. Libyan Studies. 2018;**49**:51-79. DOI: 10.1017/ lis.2018.8

[19] Dinçyürek O, Mallick FH, Numan I. Cultural and environmental values in the arcaded Mesaorian houses of Cyprus. Building and Environment. 2003;**38**:1463-1473. ISSN: 0360-1323

[20] Kurt S, Kiessel M, Mesda Y, Shagbaor Y. Vernacular architecture in Louroujina, Cyprus: Typology of houses. In: Proceedings of Kerpic '13. New Generation Earthen Architecture: Learning from Heritage; 11-15 September 2013; Istanbul. Istanbul: Istanbul Aydin University; 2013. pp. 131-140. ISBN: 978-605-4303-24-3

[21] Dinçyürek O. The rural vernacular architecture of Cyprus (northern) [PhD thesis]. Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University; 2002. pp. 166 (Table IV-5), 170-171 (Table IV-8)

[22] Harrell JA, Storemyr P. Ancient Egyptian quarries-an illustrated overview. In: Abu-Jaber N, Bloxam EG, Degryse P, Heldal T, editors. Quarryscapes: Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication 12. Norway: Geological Survey of Norway; 2009. p. 7-50, Figure 6. ISBN: 978-82-7385-138-3

[23] Markides D. Nicosia under British rule. In: Michaelides D, editor. Historic Nicosia. Nicosia: Rimal Publications; 2012. pp. 325-402. ISBN: 978-9963-610-44-0

[24] Dinçyürek O, Olgaç Türker Ö. Learning from traditional built environment of Cyprus:

Reinterpretation of the contextual values. Building and Environment. 2007;**42**:3384-3392. Figure 7. ISSN: 0360-1323

**385**

**Chapter 32**

**Abstract**

around the world.

**1. Introduction**

ecological settlement, eco-village model

Eco-villages as a Sustainable

*Murat Kuruoğlu, Selin Başcan Yüce, Kahraman Eskidemir,* 

*Gözde İrem Cebir, Funda Yirmibeşoğlu and Nurkan Baykara*

The search for creating a sustainable living environment throughout the world is increasing day by day. Eco-villages are a type of intelligent settlements with ecological characteristics such as natural agriculture and livestock activities, thus producing their own nutrients, utilizing renewable energy systems, transforming their wastes, and having a self-sufficient and collective social life. With the migration from rural areas to cities, eco-villages constitute a solution for the redevelopment of rural areas where the population is lost and investments decrease. This paper underlines the necessity of eco-village's contribution to cities and human species and points out the lack of eco-village implementations in Turkey. First, this article identifies eco-village movement and the development of eco-villages in various countries, discussing from the beginning how they emerged and were shaped through needs. Second, this paper aims to find answers of eco-village indicators in Turkey with the help of a survey study. The survey consists of different questions which are related to village economy, social structure, usage, transportation, construction materials, etc. Based on the survey results, the paper examines which criteria are important and how they could be improved and integrated to an eco-village model. It is aimed to obtain an eco-village model based mainly on the outputs of the survey, literature review, and various examples from

 

Settlement Type: A Model

**Keywords:** eco-village, smart eco-village, sustainable settlement,

Programme for perfect sustainable living models [1].

Eco-villages are ecologically, socioculturally, and spiritually sustainable settlement models. They aim to reduce the amount of negative effects of human beings on nature through eco-friendly design practices and through voluntary participation. Eco-villages project a living style in which people form communities that are in touch with nature and which makes it a priority that all living creatures healthfully continue to exist in the future. What lies beneath the concept of eco-village is the root idea that a person should take the responsibility for his/her own life. In addition, eco-villages were mentioned at the United Nations' Sustainable Development

Proposal for Turkey

#### **Chapter 32**
