ICONARP

ICONARP
International Journal of Architecture & Planning
Received 25 March 2017; Accepted 10 November 2017
Volume 5, Special Issue, pp: 60-76/Published 18 December 2017
Research Article DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26-E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Temporality and Memory in

Architecture: Hagia Sophia Yüksel Burçin Nur*
Yasemen Say Ozer**

Abstract
Istanbul, having hosted many civilizations and cultures, has a long and Keywords:.Hagia.Sophia,.temporality,
immortal building, place of memory
important past. Due to its geopolitical locations, the city has been the
capital of two civilizations—Ottoman and Byzantine Empires—which *M.SC. Architect, Istanbul
E-mail: [email protected]
left its traces in the history of the world. Architectural and symbolic Orchid.ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
monuments built by these civilizations made an impression in all 4212-6851
communities making the city a center of attraction. After each and every
**Assoc. Prof. Dr. Department of
damage caused by wars, civil strifes, and natural disasters, maximum Architecture, Yildiz Technical University,
effort has been made to restore these symbolic buildings. Istanbul.
E-mail: [email protected]
Orchid.ID:.http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
Attitude of a society to a piece of art or an architectural construction 9497-9368
defined as historical artifact is shown in interventions, architectural
supplementations and restorations to buildings to keep them alive. As a
result of this attitude, it is accepted that buildings are perceived as a
place of memory and symbolized with the city.

The most important symbolic monument of the city, Ayasofya (Hagia

Sophia), was found as the Church of the Byzantine Emperor in the year
360, then converted into the Mosque of the Ottoman Sultan, and now
serves as one of the best-known museums of Turkey. With architectural
additions requested by Byzantine emperors and Ottoman sultans,
restorations and other functional changes; Hagia Sophia had become a
monument witnessing its own changes as well as its surroundings while
Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

collecting memories. Accordingly, Hagia Sophia can be described as an

immortal building.

Immortality is out of time notion, however it is a reflection of time effects

as well. Immortality is about resisting to time. A construction from the
past which appreciates as time passes will also exist in the future
preserving its value. The building has been strengthened with the
memory phenomenon formed during construction, incidents that the
building witnessed in its location, restorations, architectural
supplementations and the perception of the world heritage.

The main purpose of this presentation is to show how an intangible

concept as memory concretizes in an architectural structure within the
frames of immortality and time concepts by examining Hagia Sophia.

INTRODUCTION

Istanbul had hosted many civilizations and cultures in the BC ages.

The first establishment of Hagia Sophia in 700 B.C. have been the
centers of early Greek civilizations and Byzantion city established
in 700 B.C. The area chosen as the city center illustrates the
texture feature of Acropolis of the ancient city. In this acropolis,
different civilizations built many temples. The temple built by
Yanko Bin Madyan at 615 BC or 1200 BC is known as the oldest
structure built in this area (Akgündüz, Öztürk and Baş, 2006). The
temple history lies between 660 BC - 73 AD and it’s been 61
destroyed during the invasion of the city. Then Helios Temple has
been built instead during the reign of Emperor Septimius Severus
(145-211) (Özkan Aygün, 2010). It’s also known that Mother
Goddess and Artemis temples have been built in the location of
Hagia Sophia (Yıldırım, 2008).

The 1st church built in this acropolis during the reign of Byzantine
Empire opened for worship in 360 and then destroyed at a revolt
in 404. After the destruction of the 1st church, the construction of
the 2nd church started in 408 and opened in 415. It’s destroyed at
a revolt in 532. The construction of the 3rd church (Hagia Sophia)
started in 532 and opened in 538 and it is the oldest one among
the well-protected buildings of the city.
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Research subject to the presentation consists of three main stages

and conclusion. In the first stage; the memory place under time
concept, perception and attitude concepts are described and
legends on Hagia Sophia, other buildings that taken Hagia Sophia
as reference, discussions and considerations about Hagia Sophia
are examined. In the second stage; spatial changes in Hagia
Sophia’s surroundings are studied with supplementary maps. In
the third stage; information on architectural features, restorations
and architectural supplementations is provided. To conclude,
impact of time on the memory about a construction in the past,
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

present and future is addressed while identifying immortality and

temporality in architecture.

TEMPORALITY and HAGIA SOPHIA

Concept of time is the necessity of man and community, culture

and civilization, dynamism and stability, substance and existence
(Heidegger, 1996). Time is the most important concept for having
a place in the memories of civilizations, in the embracement of a
construction, event or situation and in the development of a
belongingness and culture to create identity (Lynch, 2010).

The acceptance of a construction as a piece of art relates to the

sensations created by that construction on the communities in
time known as aesthetical values. This value shapes the
perception of the community. Therefore, the embracement of the
construction and transformation to a memory place relates to the
attitude created as the result of this perception (Tunalı, 1989).

While a structure is totally examined, it should also be examined

within the frame of temporality.

Legends
Many legends are created about Hagia Sophia. The effects of its
62 architectural features over the community are legendary and so
the construction, immortality and be seen as savior are the main
subjects of these legends.

The wishing column (also known as perspiring column) of Saint

Gregorios is also associated with Hizir and the legend of the
column realizing the wishes still have acceptance even today. The
legends such as starting a journey only after praying at Hagia
Sophia, the doors built from the wood of the ship of Noah and
blessed water curing the heart were accepted at the Byzantine
period and embraced during Ottoman period.
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

Construction Taking Hagia Sophia as Reference

Hagia Sophia has been reference, measure and inspiration to
many construction in Istanbul and in the world thanks to its
architectural feature, internal and external reflection in terms of
esthetics, structural solutions and similar feature. Art historians
such as Cornelius Gurlitt, Ernst Diez and Cyril Mango pleads that
Hagia Sophia has effected Ottoman architectural style (Mango,
2006;Tümer, 2006).

First the esthetical value of the structure is determined by

comparing it with Pantheon. After the construction of Hagia
Sophia, the structures in the Middle Italy have continued to be
compared to Pantheon. However, the structures in the other parts
 Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

of Italy have taken Hagia Sophia as reference instead of Pantheon

(Günther, 2011).

Figure 1. The plans of Hagia Sophia

Church and St. Peter Church
(Nur,2016).

St. Peter’s Basilica (1626), has taken Hagia Sophia as reference for
the internal narthex and the vaulting dome system used in the
internal narthex (Günther, 2011).

63
Figure 2. The plans of Hagia Sophia
(1453) and Fatih Mosque (Nur,
2016).

Fatih Mosque (1470), domed central square plan, flattened dome

and interlacing pendentives from the square form of the central
dome to the dome and the tectonic structure are the similarities
with Hagia Sophia (Necipoğlu,2015).

Beyazid Mosque (1506), Sehzade Mosque (1548), Suleymaniye

Mosque (1557) and Kılıc Ali Pasa Mosque (1580) have taken
Hagia Sophia as reference in the upper structures and added to
two large flattened domes to the main dome (Mainstone, 1988;
Kuban, 1988).
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Figure 3. Hagia Sophia, Beyazid

and Suleymaniye Mosque models

Sultan Ahmet Mosque (1616) and Camlıca Mosque (2017) have

taken Hagia Sophia as reference for the upper structures and used
flattened domes under the central dome.
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Figure 4. Hagia Sophia and Sultan

Ahmet Mosques isometric section
(Mainstone,.1988;.Columbia
University)

Mangana Saint Georgios Monastery (1055) and Selimiye Mosque

(1574) have been designed to exceed Hagia Sophia in terms of
architecture and esthetics (Gürzap, 2015).

64
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

Figure 5. Hagia Sophia, Mangana

Saint Georgios Monastery and
Selimiye Mosque Models

Discussions and Considerations

It’s known that there are many discussion on Hagia Sophia which
has survived 1500 years, witnessed two difference religions and
social dynamics and finally became a museum by earning a value
over religions and cultures.
Many rumors about the destruction of Hagia Sophia are spread
during the invasion of Istanbul by Ottoman and the reign of
Ottoman Empire. There are objections to the transformation of a
structure used as church for 916 years to a mosque and other
 Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

objections to the transformation of a structure used as a mosque

for 482 years to a museum. There are also claims of fake
signatures on the documents. The idea of reopening Hagia Sophia
to religious services have triggered the discussion of which
religion it will serve to. These discussions continue today.

HAGIA SOPHIA IN THE URBAN FABRIC

Constantinos I has created Council Road line (Mese-Divanyolu)

first while building the city of Constantinople (Cerasi, 2005). The
main temple at the beginning of the road to Europe was placed
and was determined the center of the city. The most important
factors of choosing this area for Hagia Sophia are that this location
is the most important point of the acropolis in Istanbul geography,
the topographical characteristics and important position of the
location in Istanbul view, strong dominance and acceptance of the
location as memory place and belief in the holy soil.

65

DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Figure 6. Topography and urban

fabric of Byzantine (Nur, 2016).

In the reign of Byzantine Empire, Palace, Senate and the

Courthouse, Hippodrome, Hagia Irene Church, cisterns and city
walls were built around Hagia Sophia.

Hagia Sophia and surroundings are also accepted as city center in

the reign of Ottoman Empire. Council Road maintained its
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

importance with the same function and the line was powered by
buildings around it. Hagia Sophia has effected its close
surroundings due to its location. Topkapi Palace, Gulhane Park,
Tiled Kiosk, Firuz Aga Mosque, Grand Vizier İbrahim Pasa Palace,
Haseki Hurrem Bathhouse, Caferaga Madrasa, Sultan Ahmet
Mosque, III. Ahmet Fountain, Archeology Museum and German
Fountain have been built and the urban fabric is shaped by taking
Hagia Sophia as reference.

66 Figure 7. The constructions which

have taken Hagia Sophia’s location
as reference (Nur, 2016).

In the reign of Selim II, it’s thought that the wooden structures
close to Hagia Sophia may damage Hagia Sophia in case of a fire.
They are destroyed and a new environmental planning has been
realized (Yücel, 2009). During the reigns of Abdulhamid I and
Abdulaziz I sidewalks are built within the frame of environmental
planning (Özcan, 2006). The wooden structures which were
rebuilt around Hagia Sophia in time are redestroyed in the Fossati
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

Restoration and in the year 1868. After Ishak Pasa Fire in 1912, in
the year 1913 the square between Hagia Sophia and Sultan Ahmet
Mosque is arranged (Akgündüz, Öztürk and Baş, 2006). When the
maps are examined, it’s seen that the unplanned urban fabric was
planned and arranged in accordance with the restored
constructions locations. In 1977 residential buildings survey,
reconstruction and restoration was made in Sogukcesme Street
and new open exhibition spaces were created as well as passages
to the street (Küçük, 1985).
 Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

67

Figure 8. The comparison of 1909

Lacey Sillar-Westminster Map,
1918-1921 German Map, 1922 Map
and Müller Map to the Present Map
(Nur, 2016).

ARCHITECTURE of HAGIA SOPHIA

The breaking point of Hagia Sophia is accepted as the functional

change with the change of demographic situation, culture and the
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

belief of Istanbul city. Within the scope of this breaking point,

Hagia Sophia with the architectural additions and liturgical
objects added by the previous Emperors is reorganized to meet
the necessities of the new era and needs and survived up to date
with restoration works. As addition to these breaking points, the
architectural features of the 1st and 2nd churches built in the
same location before Hagia Sophia are also important for
understanding the structure.
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Church
Although the architectural characteristics are not exactly known,
after the researches it’s thought that the 1st church—named as Hé
Megalé Ekklésia— which has been started to build in the reign of
Constantinos I (324-337) and completed in the reign of the
Constantinos II (337-361) had wooden roof, stone walls, three or
five naves, atrium and narthex in the front section and galleries on
the upper storey (Diker, 2016). The Treasure Room
(Skeuophylakion), Baptistery (Olympas) and Eparchy Palace next
to the south wall have been built with the structure. It’s thought
the walls separating the middle and side naves are covered with
mosaics.

Figure 9. 1st Church and 2nd

Church Plans (Başgelen, 1994; Nur,
2016)

68 The 2nd church built in the reign of Theodosios II by Architect

Ruffinos and named as Dromikos is built on the foundations of the
1st church. It’s thought that the 2nd church had wooden roof, five
naves, arched ceiling, basilica plan and walls are made of stone
and bricks. The entrance to the 2nd church was through columnar
atrium to the west, stairs to the narthex of 5.00m height and
monumental entrance of three arched doors (Doğan, 2009). The
exact plans and correct architectural dimensions could not be
reached however it’s estimated that the atrium was 47.60 m x
35.50 m and the worshipping zone was 60m wide (Akgündüz,
Öztürk and Baş, 2006; Yücel, 2009). The 2nd church with
Skeuophylakion at the west was flamboyant compared to the 1st
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

church and it can be seen from ruins of the column headings,

embossments and monumental entrance.

The 3rd church which has been started to build in 532 in the reign
of Justinianus, built by Architect Anthemios and Architect Isidoros
and named as Hagia Sophia has domed basilica plan, atrium
serving as cistern with fountain in the west and the middle, square
worshipping zone and naves at both sides and the galleries on the
upper storey reachable through four ramps (Mango, 2006). The
worshipping zone is approximately 79.30 m x 69.50 m and 100 m
x 70 m including the narthexes. The width of side naves is 18.20m
and 18.70m. Abscissa exceeds 6m outside (Doğan, 2009; Diker,
2016). The construction is built with materials brought from the
 Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

wide borders of the Empire and the structural artifacts brought

from the temples. Marble is used in the flooring and the walls and
the usage of wooden materials are avoided due to the risk of being
damaged.

It’s known that Patriarchate Building and the Chapel is next to the
upper storey gallery wall and there’s another room near the south
ramp. Additionally, there’s hall linked to the bell towers and it has
no connection with Hagia Sophia (Kostenec and Dark, 2014).

The dome was collapsed because of the earthquakes in 553 and

557. Then it’s reconstructed by Young Isidoros in five years and
6.24 meter higher (Mango, 2006; Kuban, 2010).

Figure.10..Hagia.Sophia's
sections.in.537.and.562
(Başgelen,1994, Nur,2015)

69

Figure 11. The models of 2nd

Church, 3rd Church (537) and 3rd
Church (562).

Dome repairs are made in the reigns of Basileios I (867-886),

Constantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (908-959) and Basileios II
(976-1025) (Şehsuvaroğlu, 1953; Gurlitt, 1999; Gurlitt, 1912).

Hagia Sophia is plundered in 1204 during 4th crusade and no

DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

architectural applications are made except the addition of the

closed and roofed entrance at the southeast until it’s patronized
by Byzantine Empire again in 1261 (Talbot,1993).

In the reign of Michael VIII (1259-1282) repairs are made by

Architect Ruchas. In the reigns of Ioannes Kantakuzenous VI
(1347-1354) and Andronikos II (1282-1328), the damaged dome
due to the earthquakes are reconstructed and buttresses are
added (Mango, 2006).
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Figure 12. Hagia Sophia Church

plan and section in 1453 (Nur,
2016)

Mosque
70 Hagia Sophia has been started to be used as Mosque with the
conquest of Istanbul by Ottoman Empire. In the reign of Mehmet
the Conqueror (1451-1481) new arrangements are made as the
belief is changed. The liturgical objects are removed, the mass axis
is dislocated to 100 south and the mosaics are covered (Öztürk,
2003; Yıldırım, 2008). A wooden minaret and a cistern is added
and a madrasa is constructed next to it.

All Ottoman Sultans have restoration works against the factors

such as earthquakes, fires, time, revolts and so. They also added
various liturgical objects, architectural elements and new
structures in its garden to enrich the construction.
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

The Timewise Examination of Hagia Sophia Mosque

Table.1..The.timewise examination.of.Hagia.Sophia Mosque

(Y.Burcin Nur, 2017)

DATE SULTAN APPLICATIONS MADE

1481-1512 Beyazid II Southeast Minaret was added. A storey

was added to the Madrasa.

1520-1566 Suleyman the Two bronze candelabras were added in

Magnificent Hagia Sophia.
Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

1566-1574 Selim II Northeast Minaret was added. A storey

was added to the Madrassa. The
structure was strengthened with
buttresses. A cistern was added and a
fountain was built in the garden.

1574-1595 Murat III Southwest and Northwest Minarets were

added. Tomb of Sultan Selim II and Tomb
of Princes were built in the garden.
Muezzin’s Loge were added.

1595-1603 Mehmet III Tomb of Sultan Murat III were built.

1603-1617 Ahmet I Tomb of Sultan Mehmet III were built in

the courtyard. Tiled panels and
calligraphic plates were added.

1623-1640 Murat IV The Baptistery was transformed into

Tomb of Sultan Mustafa I. Minbar and
calligraphist plates were added.

1640-1648 İbrahim I A public fountain is built in the yard.

1648-1687 Mehmet IV Calligraphist plates were added.

1695-1703 Mustafa II Calligraphist plates were added.

1703-1730 Ahmet III Sultan’s Loge was widened.

1730-1754 Mahmut I A library to the side nave, Elementary 71

School to the southwest, a fountain in the
yard and an Almshouse to the northeast
were built. Kasrı Hümayun (Sultan
Kiosk) was added to Ayasofya.

1789-1807 Selim III Calligraphist plates are added

1808-1839 Mahmut II Two tiled panels are added.

1839-1861 Abdulmecid I A cistern was added to the internal

narthex. The statics was strengthened,
the mosaics were repaired and recorded,
liturgical objects were added, the
surrounding constructions were
reorganized, Sultan Kiosk was added, all
surface coatings were repaired and
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Fossati Restoration was made and it has

the most important role in the survival of
Hagia Sophia up to date. At the same,
Timing Room (Muvakkithane) was added
in the courtyard.

1861-1876 Abdulaziz I Madrasa is rebuilt.

1909-1918 Mehmed The reports prepared by H. Prost and

Resat V Maranconi could not be realized due to
WW I.
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Figure 13. Hagia Sophia Mosque

1453-1481, 1481-1640, 1640-1861

72 Museum
plans (Nur, 2017)

In 1935 with the new Republic, Hagia Sophia was rearranged and
transformed into a museum. The liturgical object which will not
be shown into exhibition were removed from Hagia Sophia and
restoration work was started (Eyice, 1951).

In the first years of Republic, the mosaics were removed by

Thomas Whittemore and his works lasted for 19 years(Ogan,
1950; Nelson, 2013; Eldem, 2015).

Many local and foreign historians, architects, archaeologists and

ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

similar experts have worked in the mosaics removal and

restoration works of Hagia Sophia and the made excavation
studies in and out of the structure.

In 1935, Madrasa has collapsed and the ruins of 2nd church is

found by A. M. Schneider (Ahunbay, 2015; Diker, 2016; Çift and
Altunay, 2016).

1947-1950 During the excavation works realized by Muzaffer

Ramazanoglu new discoveries were made related to the 1st
church and during the excavation works realized by Architect
Alpaslan Koyunlu in 1955 discoveries were made related to the
2nd church(Akgündüz, Öztürk and Baş,2006; Yücel, 2009).
Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

In 1959-1960, Archeologist Rustem Duyuran have made ruins of

four support walls of the monastery during the mosaic works of
Dr. Cyril Mango and Professor Romilly J. H. Jenkins (Underwood
and Hawkins, 961).

In 1975-1976, four support walls to the west side of Hagia Sophia

have collapsed (Eren, 1983).

In 1983, in the drilling works realized by Master Architect

Alpaslan, the ruins of the water tank and Patriarchate belonging
to the church period and passages linked to the hippodrome were
discovered (Eyice, 1991).

In 1992-1993, 2002, 2003 and 2007, reports were prepared to

research how Hagia Sophia will be affected from a possible
earthquake (Özkan Aygün, 2010).

Burial chambers and oil rooms were found in the tunnels below
by Goksel Gulensu. Underground tunnels, wells and underground
connections were found in works started by Cigdem Ozkan Aygun
in 2005 (Özkan Aygün, 2006, Yamaoka,Hara and Hidaka, 2013).

Presently, restoration works, mosaic and excavations works

continue. The structure is not totally taken under process and
survey plans, restitution and restoration works are realized
partially. Each application is carried on by different office and
73
experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The legends created about Hagia Sophia show us the effects of this
construction on the communities and how it’s embraced by
different cultures up to date even though they’re not scientifically
proven. The legends manage to survive up to date, the
embracement of two empires are all strong signs showing us the
immortality of the construction and its timeless value.

Hagia Sophia was a first in terms of structural solutions and it’s

greatly appreciated aesthetically and architecturally and effected
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

the architectural styles after its establishment.

The discussions show us that Hagia Sophia is very important for

every community and religion and it’s strongly embraced and
cannot be shared. At the same time, it’s very clear that these
discussions, claims and ideas support the immortality of Hagia
Sophia.
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Even before establishment its location was accepted as a holy site

and that’s main reason that 1st church, 2nd church and Hagia
Sophia was built on this location. Hagia Sophia was the main
church of Byzantine Empire and then embraced by Ottoman
Empire as a heritage and served as the main mosque. It’s has been
restored by the emperors and sultans of every age and they all
wanted to leave a trace in the history of Hagia Sophia with the
additions they made. Liturgical objects are added inside the
construction to increase its perception and effects on the people.

Besides the demographical changes, the constructions collapsed

in time due to earthquakes, fires and revolts had also significant
role in the transformation of the urban fabric. Additionally, the
functional change of Hagia Sophia has triggered the structural use
and implicitly the change of the close surroundings.

In accordance with all these approaches, Hagia Sophia is the solid

answer to intangible concepts such as immortality, temporality
and memory because its legends are still believed, it’s still subject
to discussions and considerations, it’s a reference position with its
architecture and location, it carries its historical importance up to
date and it has enormous history unchanging with the urban
fabric.
74 Hagia Sophia is a place of memory existed in the past, today and
will exist in the future. Hagia Sophia is to exist with time and to
reach temporality and to become forever.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is prepared by expanding the proceeding presented in

the ICONARCH III, held at Selçuk University in May 11th-13th,
2017.

REFERENCE
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

Ahunbay, Z. (2015). “Dünya Mirası Olarak Ayasofya ve Korumaya

İlişkin Sorunlar”, Toplumsal Tarih Dergisi, 254: 86-91.
Akgündüz, A., Öztürk, S. and Baş, Y. (2006). Kiliseden Müzeye
Ayasofya Cami. Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı.
Başgelen, N. (1994). Prokopios 554 tarihli İstanbul’da Iustinianus
Döneminde Yapılar- 1. Kitap. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Cerasi, M. (2005). “The Urban and Architectural Evolution Of The
İstanbul Divanyolu: Urban Aesthetics and İdeology in
Ottoman Town Building”, Brill, 22: 189-232.
Çift, P. ve Altunay, E. (2016). Ayasofya’nın Gizli Tarihi. 30. Baskı,
Beyaz Baykuş Yayınları.
Diker, H. F. (2016). Ayasofya ve Onarımları. 1. Baskı, Fatih Sultan
Mehmet Vakfı Üniversitesi Yayınları; 21.
Yüksel Burçin Nur & Yasemen Say Özer

Doğan, S. (2009). “Sultan Abdülmecid Döneminde İstanbul-

Ayasofya Camii’ndeki Onarımlar ve Çalışmaları Aktaran
Belgeler”, Bilig Dergisi,49: 1-34.
Eren, E. (1983). “Müze Çalışmaları (1969-1983)”, Ayasofya
Müzesi Yıllığı, 9: 10-12.
Eyice, S. (1951). “Ayasofya Mozaikleri ve Bunları Meydana
Çıkartan THOMAS WHITTE MORE”, Türkiye Turing ve
Otomobil Kurumu, :3-12.
Eyice, S. (1991). “Ayasofya Kütüphanesi”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
İslam Ansiklopedisi, 4. Cilt: 213-214.
Gurlitt, C. (1912). Die Baukunst Konstantinoples. Verlegt Bei Ernst
Wasmuth A.-G.
Gurlitt, C. (1999). Architecture of Constantinople- Die Baukunst
Konstantinoples. 1. Baskı, Enformasyon ve Dokümantasyon
Hizmetleri Vakfı, Öncü Basımevi.
Gürzap, D. (2015). “Sinan’ın İstanbul’u”, National Geographic
Türkiye Dergisi, 169: 53-85.
Günther, H. (2011). “Doğuda ve Batıda Antikitenin Yeniden
Doğuşu”, Sinan and the Age of him – Architect Sinan
International Symposium Memorial Events, (2010), pp. 221-
236.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Beingand Time. State University of New
York Pres.
Kostenec J. and Dark, K. (2014). “The Patriarchal Palace at 75
Constantinople in the Seventh Century: Locating Thomaites
and the Makron”, Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı, 14: 404-428.
Kuban, D. (1988). “Sinan’ın Dünya Mimarisindeki Yeri”,
Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan: Yaşadığı Çağ ve Eserleri 1-2, Vakıflar
Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 581-624.
Kuban, D. (2010). Kent ve Mimarlık Üzerine İstanbul Yazıları. Yapı
Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları.
Lynch, K. (2010). Kent İmgesi. 1. Baskı, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları.
Mango, C. (2006). Bizans Mimarisi. Kişisel Yayınlar, İstanbul.
Mainstone, R. J. (1998). Hagia Sophia Architecture, Structure and
Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, 1. Baskı, Thames and
DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.26 – E-ISSN: 2147-9380

Hudson Inc.
Necipoğlu, G. (2015). “Bir İmparatorluk Anıtının Öyküsü
Bizans’tan Sonra Ayasofya”. Toplumsal Tarih Dergisi,
254:63-75.
Özcan, K. (2006). “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları: Türk İmar
Sisteminin Kuruluş Sürecinde Erken Planlama Deneyimleri
(1839-1908)”. Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2:149-
180.
Özkan Aygün, Ç. (2010). “Ayasofya ve Topkapı”. National
Geographic Dergisi, :54-71.
 Temporality and Memory in Architecture: Hagia Sophia

Özkan Aygün, Ç. (2006). “İstanbul Ayasofyası’nın Döşeme Altı

Dehliz, Kuyu ve Su Sistemleri Araştırması 2005”, 24.
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, 29 Mayıs- 2 Haziran
2006, Çanakkale.
Öztürk, S. (2003). “İstanbul’un Fethinden Sonra Ayasofya’nın
Camiye Çevrilişi”, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14: 133-
142.
Şehsuvaroğlu, H. Y. (1953). Asırlar Boyu İstanbul, 1. Baskı,
Cumhuriyet Gazetesi.
Talbot, A. M. (1993). “The Restoration of Constantinople under
Michael VIII”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 47:243-261.
Tunalı, İ. (1989). Estetik. 3.Baskı, Remzi Kitabevi.
Tümer, G. (2006). “Alternatif Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı Üzerine Bir
Deneme: FATALİST TARİH-ALTERNATİF TARİH”, Mimarlık
Dergisi, 327: 46-53.
Underwood P.A. and Hawkins E.J.W. (1961). “The Mosaics of Hagia
Sophia at Istanbul- The Portrait of the Emperor Alexander”,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15: 187-217.
Yamaoka, K., Hara, T. and Hidaka, K. (2013). “Study on Structural
Dynamic Behaviors of Hagia Sophia through Micro-tremor
Measurement”, The 2013 World Congress on Advances in
Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM13), Jeju.

76 Yıldırım, S. Ö. (2008). Kentin Anlam Haritaları Gravürlerde

İstanbul. Kitabı Istanbul.
Yücel, E. (2009). Ayasofya, 1. Baskı, Anadolu Turizm ve Tanıtım
Yayınları.
http://www.byzantium1200.com/hagia.html, 2015.

Resume

Yüksel Burçin Nur was born in Germany. She got her B.Sc. degree
(2013) in architecture and M.Sc. degree (2017) in “Building Design
and Theory Division” at Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul. Yüksel
Burçin Nur who has studied on Hagia Sophia and temporality in her
ICONARP - Volume 5, Special Issue / Published: December 2017

thesis, has been working in an architectural office since 2013.

Yasemen Say Özer is Assoc. Prof. at Architecture Department of

Yıldız Technical University. She got her M.Sc. degree in architecture
at Mimar Sinan University, and phD at Yıldız University. In addition
to her academic studies, she had been awarded in several
architectural design competitions. She has been participating in
excavation and research studies of Kaunos since 1989.