Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey Risks Confrontation With Iran Over NATO Missile Shield

    Turkey Risks Confrontation With Iran Over NATO Missile Shield

    Turkey Risks Confrontation With Iran Over NATO Missile Shield

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 172
    September 20, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey has signed a memorandum with the United States on the deployment of a US radar station in the country, which will form part of the missile defense shield project to boost the protection of NATO members against potential missile threats from the East. Earlier this month, the Turkish foreign ministry confirmed that preparations had reached the final stage, and Turkey would host early warning radar to contribute to the Alliance’s missile defense system. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu stressed that as part of the integrated NATO project, Turkey will host only radar components, and no interceptors would be installed in the country (NTV, September 4). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also maintained that after very detailed examination by the Turkish armed forces and foreign ministry, and broad-based consultation at cabinet level, they decided to proceed with the project, as it would enhance the country’s security (Anadolu Ajansi, September 6).

    On September 14, the Turkish press publicized the signing of the memorandum by the foreign ministry under-secretary Feridun Sinirlioglu and US Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone concerning the deployment of the radar at a military base in eastern Turkey, which is expected to be operational by the end of the year. The onsite security at the radar station will be provided by around 50 US personnel, while the area will be protected by the Turkish armed forces. The Turkish foreign ministry also confirmed these developments: “site surveys and the necessary legal regulations have been concluded, and the installation of the radar at a military facility in Kurecik has been decided” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, www.mfa.gov.tr, September 14, Cihan, September 19).

    The radars in Turkey, together with interceptors in Romania and Poland and missile launchers based on warships in the Mediterranean, will be part of the defensive system to protect NATO members against potential missile attacks. When the shield was endorsed by the Alliance at the NATO Summit in Lisbon in November 2010, it was surrounded by many controversies. Concerns over the feasibility and financing of the project aside, the most controversial aspect was Turkey’s reservations about it, which cast doubt on the future of the system (EDM, October 21, 2010).

    At the time, Turkey worked hard to ensure that Iran was not singled out as the country against which the system was developed, fearing that such a development would damage its ties with its neighbors with whom it had forged stronger relations. Over several months of discussion prior to the summit, Turkey even threatened to veto the project, leading to tensions in US-Turkish relations. Ankara later dropped its objections, arguing that the project would also boost its efforts to acquire defensive capabilities against increasing threats from ballistic missiles. Though Turkey claimed credit for preventing Iran from being named in the Lisbon declaration, Western political and military officials have made no secret of the fact that Iran’s missile capability and nuclear program was the main source of concern triggering this project.

    Iran has expressed its uneasiness over these developments. When Turkey first announced that it would go ahead with the plans, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi criticized the project. “The West claims the radar system [in Turkey] is to confront Iranian missiles, but they should be aware that we will not tolerate any aggression against our national interests,” Vahidi said (Hurriyet Daily News, September 7). Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Ramin Mehmanparast, joined the criticism, noting that “We expect friendly countries and neighbors…not to promote policies that create tension and which will definitely have complicated consequences… Iran condemns any action that creates an arms race in the world and region” (www.worldbulletin.com, September 8). Likewise, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also warned Turkey against this development: “Turkey is among our brothers and sincere friends, but when enemies deploy a missile system there and admit that it is against Iran, we should be careful” (www.farsnews.com, September 17).

    The agreement is proving to be controversial domestically. Amongst Turkish public opinion, there is widespread perception fed by speculative newspaper reports that the missile shield is being built to protect Israel. Main opposition party representatives also express similar views, accusing the government of signing an agreement that would protect Israel, which Erdogan refuted as nonsensical (Anadolu Ajansi, September 6). As a NATO partner, Israel arguably seeks to be protected by the system, while US officials express willingness to fuse information obtained through the radars in Turkey and Israel for greater operability of the system. Yet, Davutoglu insisted that the information gathered through the radar station would not be shared with Israel. Moreover, he stated that Turkey used its veto threat to thwart Israel’s attempt to open an office at NATO Headquarters in Brussels under NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue program (CNN Turk, September 18).

    The Turkish government wants to signal that it remains steadfast in its policy of isolating Israel rather than simply bowing to pressure from Washington to deploy radars on Turkish soil. Instead, the government conveys the message that Turkey willingly participates in the project, because it deems the system vital for its own security. Yet, so far Iran appears unconvinced by this interpretation and might risk a confrontation with Turkey over the issue.

    The extent to which Iran reacts to Turkey’s move remains to be seen. But, Iran’s reference to “escalation” is important in many ways. Part of Iran’s military strategy is based on using its missile program as deterrence against attack by the United States and Israel. If the missile shield project is fully developed, it will reduce the utility of Iran’s missile system, perhaps forcing it to boost its strike capacity, hence triggering an arms race. This is certainly a scenario Turkey wants to avoid, and it will have to tread carefully to allay Iran’s anxiety. However, at a time when Turkey and the United States appear to be working closely in the Middle East, Ankara will likely find it difficult to convince Tehran.

    In contrast, the decision on the basing of the radars signifies a major turning point in US-Turkish relations, as part of Turkey’s broader strategic reorientation of its Middle East policies in a direction in tune with its senior ally. After years of rather confrontational relations, Ankara and Washington are now going through a much more cooperative phase in the region, using also the momentum generated by overlapping policies in response to the Arab Spring.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-risks-confrontation-with-iran-over-nato-missile-shield/

  • Visit to Nakhichevan Shows Why Armenians Can Never Again Live Under Azeri Rule

    Visit to Nakhichevan Shows Why Armenians Can Never Again Live Under Azeri Rule

     

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    sassounian32

    Scottish researcher Steven Sim reported about his troubling experiences in Nakhichevan, a historic Armenian territory now occupied by Azerbaijan. Since Sim’s 2006 revealing report has not been adequately publicized in the international media, I would like to present here some of its highlights.

     

    Sim stated that he entered Nakhichevan by land from Turkey and traveled to the village of Abrakunis at Yernjak valley. When he asked a 12-year-old about an ancient church there, the boy pointed to an empty piece of land.

     

    Sim next visited Bananiyar, known to Armenians as Aparank, where he reported that “at least until the 1970s there were some ruins of a large medieval church located on high ground in the middle of the village. Now a mosque is built on the former church grounds.” At Norashen, two Armenian churches and a graveyard had existed at the north-western edge of this village. He found no trace of either churches or the graveyard.

     

    On his 3rd day in Nakhichivan, while traveling by train to Julfa, Sim observed the remains of the Jugha graveyard. He reported seeing “a hillside covered by stone slabs, spread out over three ridges. All of the gravestones had been toppled, without any exceptions.”

     

    In Ordubad, Sim was taken to the police station where his bag was searched, as he was interrogated about the purpose of his visit. He was then placed on the next bus back to Nakhichevan city. From there he went to Shurut which used to be “a small Armenian town during the late medieval period, with churches, schools, monasteries, scriptoria and several tens of thousands of inhabitants.”

     

    At the neighboring Krna village, there were no traces of the local Armenian Church. The same was true about the village of Gah. When he asked a passerby about the church in Shurut, he was told that it had been destroyed.

     

    In Shurut, Sim was confronted by a group of villagers. When he said that he had come to see the old church, they told him that there was never a church in their village. As he left Shurut, the taxi driver told Sim that the villagers had phoned the police in Julfa and that law enforcement officials would probably be waiting for him somewhere along the road.

     

    A car was indeed waiting for Sim. “A policeman got into the back of the taxi and asked me if I had a topographic map, and an ethnographic book.” When Sim answered that he did not, the policeman made a cursory search of his bag. In Julfa, Sim stopped at the police headquarters, where his bag was searched again. After waiting in a corridor for a while, Sim was taken to the town’s Araz Hotel. He was escorted to a garden in the back of the building. Sim was finally allowed to leave after 3 hours. Everything in Sim’s “bag was taken out and carefully looked at, and the bag itself was examined for any secret compartments. This lasted for about 15 minutes, without a word being spoken.”

     

    Sim was asked about his job. How much did he earn, who paid him to come to Nakhichevan, and why would he spend his own money to come here? The officers examined carefully Sim’s notebook and checked through all of his photographs stored in his digital camera. They showed most interest in a photograph he had taken in Nakhichevan city. “It was of a stone slab that I had seen in the gardens opposite the Momina Hatun mausoleum, surrounded by a large collection of ram-shaped gravestones. On this stone was carved a cross rising from a rectangular base.”

     

    The Azeri officials told him that it was not a cross. Sim told them that he had read about the church in an Armenian book. They angrily responded: “It is wrong. It is lying to you. You see, Armenians are always lying — they are lying to everyone.” They also stated that “there never were any Armenian churches anywhere in Nakhichevan. There were no Armenians ever living here — so how could there have been churches here?” The Azeris told Sim: “We think that you are not here with good intentions towards the Azerbaijan republic.”

     

    Sim stated that his unpleasant experiences in Nakhichevan shed “some light onto the attitudes that Azerbaijan holds about Armenians and anything Armenian.” The report shows why it is impossible for Armenians of Artsakh (Karabagh) to live ever again under oppressive Azeri rule. If a Scottish visitor is treated so poorly, imagine how much worse Azeris treated their Armenian subjects in Artsakh until its liberation.
  • Book on Armenia-Turkey Protocols Warns Arabs not to Trust Turkish Friendship

    Book on Armenia-Turkey Protocols Warns Arabs not to Trust Turkish Friendship

    sassounian31

     

     

    Publisher of The California Courier

     

    I was privileged to attend a special program in Beirut last Friday, sponsored by the Armenian National Committee of Lebanon, dedicated to the publication of my new book in Arabic: “Armenia-Turkey Protocols: Truth or Deception?” The book is the compilation of 43 columns I had written in The California Courier in the last three years on the controversial Protocols.

     

    After introductory remarks by George Sabounjian of the local ANC, Dr. Nora Arissian of Damascus, Syria, the translator of the book, asserted that Sassounian’s columns exposed the Turkish government’s fake intent. She reminded the audience that the author had accurately predicted at the outset of the negotiations that Turkey would not keep its promise to ratify the Protocols and lift the blockade of Armenia.

     

    Dr. Arissian was followed by veteran Lebanese Minister Michel Edde who had written a lengthy and insightful introduction to the book. Mr. Edde had held five ministerial posts during his long and distinguished career in various Lebanese cabinets. In his remarks, the prominent Minister commended the author for his analytical columns, praised the Armenian community of Lebanon for its active role in the country’s progress, and condemned Turkey for its denial of the Armenian Genocide. At the end of his remarks, Minister Edde surprised the audience by announcing a generous and unexpected personal contribution of $25,000 to the ANC of Lebanon.

     

    The evening’s program was conducted in Arabic, given the fact that there were Arab guests in the audience and the book was intended for Arab leaders and masses. I was gratified to be able to deliver a portion of my remarks in Arabic. Surprisingly, I still remembered the Arabic I had learned over 40 years ago as a student at the local Sophia Hagopian High School.

     

    I reminded the attendees that the Turkish government’s true intent was to exploit the Protocols in order to pressure Armenia into giving up its pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and create a smokescreen of peaceful negotiations so that other countries, particularly the United States, would be warned not to undermine this make-believe reconciliation and budding relationship by recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

     

    In addition, Turkey wanted Armenia to return Nagorno Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan’s control, give up its demands for Western Armenia which is currently under Turkish occupation, and to tried undermine overall Armenian unity by pitting the Diaspora against the homeland.

     

    Doggedly pursuing its intent to extract additional concessions from Armenia, the Turkish government kept refusing to ratify the Protocols it had signed two years ago. Failing to accomplish its self-serving objectives, the Turkish Parliament recently took the final step to kill the Protocols by removing them from its agenda, citing a technicality.

     

    This failed experiment of Armenia-Turkey Protocols clearly proves that Turkey is more interested in playing diplomatic games and creating false impressions than pursuing peaceful co-existence. Turkish commitments cannot be taken seriously and Turkey’s leaders’ signatures on international agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.

     

    In my remarks, I pointed out that Turkish leaders have been presenting themselves as defenders of the Palestinian cause, and supporters of all Arabs and Muslims, while continuing to be Israel’s strategic partner, and covertly sharing with it some of the most sensitive military secrets of Arab countries.

     

    In my opinion, Palestinians and Arabs in general do not need the fake friendship of Turkey’s neo-Ottoman leaders. Arab masses must demand that their own indigenous leaders, not self-serving foreign rulers, defend their national interest.

     

    We just saw how Turkey sided with the despotic regimes in Egypt and Libya until the very last moment when the dictators of these countries were about to be toppled. This is not genuine friendship. This is crass opportunism!

     

    Since Arabs and Armenians have both experienced horrendous suffering and atrocities under the Ottoman yoke, they can not be fooled easily by dishonest Turkish gestures of rapprochement. The survivors of the Armenian Genocide were the grateful beneficiaries of Arab hospitality throughout the Middle East. Without such humanitarian intervention, many more Armenians would have perished.

     

    I ended my remarks by expressing my gratitude to Minister Michel Edde for writing an inspiring introduction to my book, and to Dr. Nora Arissian who had spent countless hours to painstakingly translate it from English into Arabic, as well as my previous book on the Armenian Genocide. I also thanked the Armenian National Committee of Lebanon for hosting the evening’s program at the Pyunic Hall of Aztag newspaper, and the Hamazkayine Publishing House for

    publishing the book. I expressed my special gratitude to benefactor Gabriel Chemberjian and his Pyunic Foundation for sponsoring the book’s translation and publication. At the end of the program, signed copies of the book were distributed to the guests.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  • Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 163
    September 7, 2011
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkey has announced various measures, in an effort to punish Israel for its failure to meet its demands for the Mavi Marmara incident last year, in which nine Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli soldiers. Ankara’s decision came on the eve of the announcement of the Palmer Commission’s report on the incident, established by the United Nations to investigate the competing claims by the parties. Previously, the announcement of the report was postponed for several months in the hope that it could be fine-tuned to live up to both sides’ expectations, and a diplomatic solution could be orchestrated to dampen tensions. While the report was finally due to be officially announced on Friday, it was leaked to the US press, which sparked Ankara’s reaction.

    Though Turkey’s move appeared sudden, it has been in the works for some time. Since the Mavi Marmara incident, on the one hand, the Turkish government has made an apology an essential condition for normalizing relations with Israel, and, on the other hand, it questioned the legality of the Gaza blockade. Israel’s refusal to compromise on both points has gradually deteriorated Turkish-Israeli relations, raising concerns in Washington over the implications of the rift between the two key US allies. Meanwhile, its inability to persuade Israel to change position has put the Turkish government in a difficult position domestically, as nationalist forces have criticized it for failing to protect the nation’s interests and prestige.

    Though severing bilateral ties through the initiation of some low-key measures, Turkey’s strategy was based on the internationalization of the issue to the extent possible to make Israel accountable before the international community. The initial statement from the UN Security Council and the Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict released in September 2009 were in line with Turkey’s position. Turkey, thus, invested high hopes on the Palmer Commission’s inquiry, expecting that a decision favoring its position will result in confirmation of the nonconformity of the Gaza embargo with international law, and further generate worldwide pressure on Israel, forcing it to accommodate Turkey’s demand for apology.

    While waiting for the conclusion of the Palmer Commission’s work, the Turkish government considered more forceful measures against Israel, since the indications were such that the report might fail to live up to Ankara’s expectations (EDM, May 19). Moreover, although attempts were underway to find a negotiated solution –four secret talks in six sessions were held- and there was even speculation that the Israeli government was considering an apology, this process did not seem promising, either. Days before the submission of the Palmer report to the UN Secretary-General last month, Tel Aviv made it clear to Washington that it would not issue an apology, to which Ankara responded by saying that Turkey would go ahead with forceful measures, should Israel fail to apologize, pay compensation to the victims, and end the blockade (Radikal, August 17).

    As a head-on collision became imminent, Washington was reportedly seeking ways to avert a total collapse of the Turkish-Israeli relationship. Having managed to reestablish a collegial working relationship with Washington in the context of the Arab Spring, Ankara was keen to give a chance to Washington’s efforts. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reportedly agreed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s last-ditch offer to postpone the report until the end of September during their face-to-face meeting in Paris. However, the leak of the report to the US media a few hours later angered Turkish leaders, who interpreted this development as the work of the Israeli lobby, seeking to undermine any prospects of a compromise deal including some form of apology (www.ntvmsnbc.com, September 3).

    The tipping point was naturally the content of the report, as it was in disagreement with the Turkish theses. While the report described the Israeli use of force as excessive and unreasonable, it also found Turkey and the organizers of the flotilla partly responsible for what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara. Making no mention of an apology, the report asked Israel to make only “an appropriate statement of regret … in respect of the incident in light of its consequences,” and pay “a sufficient amount” to the injured and the victims’ families. The report also found Israel’s blockade to be a legitimate security measure.

    Turkish leaders denounced the report, maintaining that it would not be a binding UN document, and for Turkey it was non-existent (www.tccb.gov.tr, September 3). Davutoglu outlined a five-point strategy, which Turkey hopes will make Israel pay for the incident. First, diplomatic ties with Israel will be downgraded to a second-secretary level. Second, all military agreements with Israel will be suspended. Third, Turkey will take all measures deemed necessary to ensure the safety of maritime navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Fourth, renouncing Israel’s right to the Gaza blockade, Turkey will work to mobilize the UN General Assembly to bring this issue before the International Court of Justice. Fifth, Turkey will support legal action against Israel to be undertaken by the families of Mavi Marmara victims (Anadolu Ajansi, September 2). The Israeli side welcomed the report and insisted that they would not apologize and continue to enforce the blockade, signaling their readiness to face the consequences of Turkey’s precautions and confront Ankara where necessary (www.ntvmsnbc.com, September 4).

    As Turkey seeks not only retribution for the Mavi Marmara incident but also correction of Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, to which Israel obviously will continue to object, these developments risk leaving irreparable damage to bilateral ties. The most critical aspect of Ankara’s intended measures appears to be the decision to boost the Turkish naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean for the purpose of ensuring safe navigation. Taken together with Turkey’s rejection of the Gaza blockade, it might risk escalation of the crisis into a direct military confrontation. Moreover, Turkey’s preparation to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice will also further heighten the tensions on the political front. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans to visit Gaza as well as the upcoming vote on Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly will only aggravate these tensions.

    Whether Turkish-Israeli relations can be salvaged and who will mediate between the sides remain more uncertain than ever, and surprisingly the United States could exert little influence, if any, on both sides. But one thing remains certain: Turkey has so far failed to internationalize its disputes with Israel and will perhaps have difficulty in achieving this in the coming weeks.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-seeks-to-internationalize-mavi-marmara-dispute-with-israel/
  • Turkey Can Run, but Can’t Hide From the Long Arm of US Law

    Turkey Can Run, but Can’t Hide From the Long Arm of US Law

    sassounian3
    World heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis once warned one of his opponents: “You can run, but you can’t hide.” This same warning now applies to the Turkish government and two of its major banks.
    Last December, when three Armenian-Americans filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court against the Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank and Ziraat Bank, the Turkish government ridiculed the charges, claiming “sovereign immunity.”
    The Armenian-American plaintiffs were seeking $64 million in compensation for confiscation of their properties in Adana, Turkey, in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide. The plaintiffs were also demanding additional millions of dollars for the accrued rent and interest the U.S. government paid Turkey in the past 60 years for use of the strategic Incirlik Air Base, located on Armenian-owned land.
    Since one of the first steps in filing a lawsuit is to serve a copy of the court documents to the defendants, the three Turkish entities concocted elaborate schemes to avoid receiving the legal papers, in order to delay or obstruct the trial. As a result, the plaintiffs’ attorneys had to go to extraordinary lengths in the past nine months to deliver the court documents to the Turkish defendants.
    Ironically, after making every effort to block the serving of court papers, the Central Bank and Ziraat Bank filed a motion on June 1, 2011, seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that they had not received the proper documents.
    On August 2, 2011 U.S. Federal Judge Dolly Gee rejected the Turkish request, asserting that the plaintiffs’ representatives “made several attempts to serve the Bank defendants at their addresses in New York City. After being repeatedly denied access to the buildings and, in one case, being misdirected as to Ziraat Bank’s actual location, the process servers left copies of the summonses and complaint with the building security guards. Plaintiffs’ counsel then mailed additional copies to the each of the Bank defendants at these same addresses.”
    The Judge ruled that the Republic of Turkey had been adequately served with legal documents and ordered the Turkish entities to present their pleading in court no later than August 19, 2011.
    The plaintiffs’ attorneys faced greater difficulties in serving the court documents to the Turkish authorities than to the New York offices of the two banks. On January 26, 2011, the English and Turkish versions of the complaint were mailed to the Ministry of Justice in Ankara, as required by the Hague Convention. On March 1, 2011, Turkey informed the plaintiffs’ lawyers in writing, its refusal to accept the court papers, claiming that the lawsuit infringes Turkey’s “sovereignty and security.”
    After exhausting all other channels, the plaintiffs’ lawyers submitted the court documents to the U.S. Department of State on April 14, 2011, asking the latter to present them officially to the Turkish government. On June 20, 2011, the State Dept. advised the plaintiffs that the documents were forwarded through diplomatic channels to the Republic of Turkey.
    The American Embassy in Ankara transmitted the documents with a “diplomatic note,” warning the Turkish government that under U.S. law “a defendant in a lawsuit must file an answer to the complaint within 60 days from the date of notice or face the possibility of having judgment entered against it.” The U.S. Embassy strongly urged the Turkish Foreign Ministry to comply with the requirements of United States laws or face “a default judgment.”
    On August 29, 2011, after the mandated 60 days had expired and no response received from Turkey, the attorneys for the Armenian-American plaintiffs asked the Federal Court to enter a default judgment against the Turkish defendants.
    Vatan newspaper reported last week that the two Turkish banks, alarmed by the serious prospect of losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit due to their failure to respond to the U.S. Federal Court, rushed to hire a lawyer and asked for more time until Sept. 19, 2011 to file a response.
    Should the Turkish defendants not show up in court on Sept. 19, the Federal Judge could enter a default judgment and order that their assets in the U.S., up to the value of the judgment, be seized and turned over to the Armenian-American plaintiffs.
    The Turkish government can no longer hide from its responsibilities for the devastating damage caused to the Armenian people as a result of the Genocide. It is high time for Turkey to acknowledge its long history of colossal criminal acts and make appropriate amends.
  • Safranbolu & Traditional Turkish Houses

    Safranbolu & Traditional Turkish Houses

    The known history of Safranbolu, located near the north western Black Sea coast of Anatolia, in Karabük nearby Zonguldak, dates back as far as 3000 BC. Once a city of Roman Province of “Paphlagonia”, Safranbolu has hosted many civilizations including the Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk and Ottoman Empires throughout its history. During the Ottoman era the town served as an important junction on the Kastamonu – Gerede (Bolu)- Istanbul route of the famous silk road. Safranbolu was at the same time a popular residence for Ottoman Royalty close to the Sultan and Grand Viziers. The city received its name from the saffron which is native in Safranbolu. The powder obtained from its flower is a very strong dye. Used in very small quantities, saffron adds a delicate flavor, distinct aroma and a very unique color to deserts and other food in the Turkish Cuisine. It is also used for some Turkish carpets as a unique dye. Also unique in Safranbolu is the famous Çavus grapes with its extremely thin skin and sweet flavor. Safranbolu displays its extremely rich historical and cultural heritage through 1008 architectural structures displaying a good example of Turkish architecture, all preserved in their original environment. These structures include the public buildings such as Cinci Hodja Kervansaray and Cinci Hodja Hamam, Mosques of Koprulu Mehmet and Izzet Mehmet Pashas, The Tennaries Clock tower, Old hospital premises, The guild of shoe makers, The Incekaya aqueduct, The old city hall and fountains as well as hundreds of private residences. Rock tombs and tumulus just outside the city are also of interest. Safranbolu was placed in the world Cultural Heritage list by UNESCO in appreciation of the successful efforts in the preservation of its heritage as a whole. Safranbolu has deserved its real name for its houses. These houses are perfect examples of old civilian architecture, reflecting the Turkish social life of the 18th and 19th centuries. The size and the planning of the houses are deeply affected by the large size of the families, in other words a total members of a big family living together in one house. The impressive architecture of their roofs have led them to be called as “Houses with five façades”. The houses are two or three storied consisting of 6 to 9 rooms, each room is entirely detailed and have ample window space allowing plenty of light. The delicate woodwork and carved wall and ceiling decorations, the banisters indoor knobs etc. all come together to form an unmatched harmony of architectural aesthetics and Turkish art.

    Being strong and durable, functional, economical and aesthetic are the basic characteristics of the traditional Turkish house. The houses are built along the roads and on the edges of the squares in an order which reflects a strong respect for the neighbors. In most cases, the houses on both sides of the roads, which follow the configurations of the land, are separated with high walls and have overhanging sections on these walls, reaching towards the street. Entrance to the house is generally through an inner door which opens onto the garden. When household chores permitted, the lady of the house, whose privacy is ensured with the high walls, would go upstairs and look around and chat with neighbors from the overhanging windows of the hall which face either the street or the garden. The large windows of the upper floors protected with bars or grills allowed this outlet. Inside, the rooms were placed around a common space called sofa (hall), either on one or two sides or all around it. Sofas were in a sense interior court yards. It is an area which provides work space during the daily life as well as facilitating circulation among the rooms. They are opened to the outside sometimes completely on one side and sometimes on both sides. The rooms were arranged to meet all the needs of their occupants. There, one could sit and rest, sleep, eat, worship, work and even take a bath. The recessed cupboards, open shelves, storage cupboards and places for washing lining the walls functioned as built in furniture. The divans placed in front of the windows were both seats and beds and left centers of the rooms free. The main living area of the house was the upper floor while the ground floor was allocated to service spaces.The materials used in the houses varied according to the regions and climatic conditions. Wood and stone were used in the Black Sea Region, while it was stone and wood according to the locale in the West and the South and combinations of mud brick and wood in the Center and the Eastern parts of the country.
    298108 196088247124873 102386316495067 485869 127210 n