Görüntüleme
56
İndirme
9
Bu makalede, yayın bilgilerini verdiğimiz (Demirbağ, Uğur (2018), Çankırı’nın Tarihi Ve Kültürel Mirası (XI - XX. Yüzyıl), İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık, İstanbul) kitabın eleştirisi yapılmaya çalışılmıştır. Söz konusu eser, önce bir yüksek lisans tezi olarak hazırlanmıştır. Sonra metindeki birkaç küçük farkla adı değiştirilip kitap olarak yayımlanmıştır. Çankırı ilindeki Türk mimarisini oluşturan cami, çeşme, medrese, türbe vb. yapılar bir katalog düzeninde tanıtılmış ve kısa bir değerlendirme sunulmuştur. Her bilimsel çalışmada eksikler bulunabilir. Hele bir yüksek lisans tezinde de kabul edilebilir bazı eksikler olabilir. Fakat kitap olarak yayımlandığında, tezdeki eksiklerin tamamlanması ve yorumların geliştirilmesi beklenir. Ancak bu kitapta özellikle tarihi bilinmeyen yapıları tarihlemede, değerlendirme bölümünde ve çizimlerde hoş görülebilir ölçülerin dışında sıkıntılar vardır. Kitaptaki bütün çizimler kaynaklardan alınmış, yazar hiç çizim yapmamıştır. 113 yapıdan 86 tanesinin çizimi yoktur. Alınan çizimler de, çizgilerin üstünden serbest elle gidilerek şematik çizimlere dönüştürülmüştür. Çizimlerin alındığı kaynaklar gösterildiği için okuyucu, çizimlerin ilgili kaynakta da bu haliyle verildiğini düşünebilir. Bu da, kaynak gösterilen diğer yazarlar gibi, bir makalemden alınan çizimler dolayısıyla bana cevap hakkı doğurmuştur. Kaynakçada belirtilen kaynaklara metin içinde çok az atıf yapılması, kaynaklardaki bilgilerin hiç sorgulanmadan kullanılması gibi yöntem yanlışlarına işaret edip, genç araştırıcıların benzer hatalara düşmemesini umarak bu makaleyi yazdık.
In this article, we provide the publication information (Demirbağ, Uğur (2018), the Historical and Cultural Heritage of Çankırı (XI - XX. The book is based on the “Ideal Culture Publishing” (Ideal Culture Publishing). The subject work was first prepared as a master's thesis. Then it changed the name with a few small differences in the text and was published as a book. The mosque, fountain, medrese, turbe, etc. that forms the Turkish architecture in the province of Çankırı. The structures are presented in a catalogue order and a brief evaluation is presented. There can be a lack in any scientific study. There may be a few shortcomings that can also be accepted in a master's thesis. But when it is published as a book, it is expected to complete the shortcomings in the thesis and improve the comments. But in this book, especially the unknown structures of history, there are trouble in the history, in the evaluation section, and in the drawings beyond the pleasant visible dimensions. All the drawings in the book are taken from sources, the author has never drawn. 86 of the 113 buildings have no paintings. The drawings taken are also converted into schematic drawings by free hand over the lines. As the drawings are shown, the reader can think that the drawings are given in this way in the relevant source. This also gave me the right to answer because of the drawings taken from one of my articles, like the other authors shown in the source. We wrote this article, pointing out method errors, such as the very few references to the sources mentioned in the text, the use of information in the sources without any question, and hoping that young researchers will not fall into similar errors.
This article attempts to make a critic about the book which the publication info was given (Demirbağ, Uğur (2018), Çankırı’nın Tarihi ve Kültürel Mirası (XI - XX. Yüzyıl), İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık, İstanbul). The book has been presented as a master’s degree thesis prior to this. Later it was published as a book with a new tile and minor changes to the text. The Turkish architectural monuments consisting of mosques, fountains, madrasahs, tombs, etc. in Çankırı are introduced in a catalogue system, and a brief evaluation is presented. Every scientific study may have shortcomings. But when it becomes a published book it is expected to have these shortcomings remedied and have more developed interpretations. But this book has problems over permissible levels about dating the buildings with unknown dates, in the evaluation section, and its drawings. All the drawings were used from books, the author has not drawn one. Out of 113 buildings 86 of them has no drawings. The drawings were used in a schematic manner with hand drawing over the lines of the original drawing. Since the drawings were referred to their owners, readers may think that this was the way they were used in the original work. Thus, this gives me the right to make a statement over this since drawings from one of my articles were also used like the other authors who were referred. This article aims to note on the methodological mistakes such as rarely referring to the sources among the text which were included in the bibliography, using the information from these sources without questioning them, and have the young researchers not to do these same mistakes.
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
