Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Physical conditions have an important and many-faceted influence upon the human occupation and use of an area. Their influence is not always direct, but depends upon the perception of the physical environment by a resident or immigrant group. Only a part of the perceived environment affects decisionmaking and influences behavioural patterns as expressed, for example, in the siting of settlements and the use of land for subsistence. Behaviour, in turn, not only affects the physical environment – by the clearance of forest, for example – but also influences the way in which the physical environment is perceived. Continuous reappraisal is thus integral to successful human occupation and use of an area. Accordingly, established patterns may change, perhaps almost imperceptibly but sometimes radically. The mere existence of an established pattern, however, shapes subsequent reappraisals and, to some extent, controls necessary modifications and changes. A model of geographical change through time is thus more spiral than linear.
1 Davidson, D. A., “Terrain Adjustment and Prehistoric Communities”, in Ucko, P., Tringham, R. and Dimbleby, G. W. (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism, (London, 1972), pp. 17–22 Google Scholar.
2 Dewdney, J. C., Turkey, (London, 1971), pp. 23–4Google Scholar; Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbooks, Turkey, (London, 1942), Vol. 1, p. 183 Google Scholar.
3 Bakanlığı, Tarım, Devlet Meteoroloji İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ortalama ve Ekstrem Kiymetler Bülteni, (Istanbul, 1962), pp. 31–2Google Scholar.
4 Dewdney, op. cit., p. 34.
5 Koeppe, C. E. and de Long, G. C., Weather and Climate, (New York, 1958) Appendix F, pp. 314–23Google Scholar; Christiansen-Weniger, F., Die Grundlagen des türkischen Ackerbaus, (Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar.
6 Erinç, S., “The Climates of Turkey According to Thornthwaite's Classification”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 39 (1949), pp. 26–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7
Perrin de Brichambaut, G. and Wallén, C. C., A Study of Agroclimatology in Semi-Arid and Arid Zones of the Near East, World Meteorological Organization, Technical Note No. 56, (Geneva, 1963), pp. 9–10
Google Scholar. Calculated here as 
, with deviation above and below the mean calculated separately to take account of any skew distribution.
8 Huntington, E., “The Valley of the Upper Euphrates River and its People”, Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, 34 (1902), pp. 301–10, 384–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Erinç, S., “Climatic Types and the Variation of Moisture Regions in Turkey”, Geographical Review, pp. 224–35Google Scholar; Tümertekin, E., “Time Relationships Between the Wheat Growing Period and Dry Months in Turkey”, Review of the Geographical Institute of the University of Istanbul (International Edition), 2 (1955), pp. 73–84 Google Scholar; Tümertekin, E., “Some Observations Concerning Dry Farming in Arid Regions of Turkey”, Review of the Geographical Institute of the University of Istanbul, (International Edition), 3 (1956), pp. 19–30 Google Scholar.
10 Raikes, R., Water, Weather and Prehistory (London, 1967)Google Scholar.
11 Chayanov, A. V., The Theory of Peasant Economy, edited by Thorner, D., Kerblay, B. and Smith, R. E. F., (Homewood, Illinois, 1966), pp. 106–7Google Scholar.
12 Wright, H. E., “Climatic Change in Mycenean Greece”, Antiquity, 42 (1968), pp. 123–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 I am grateful for assistance from Miss J. Revell, Miss R. Davis and Miss E. Stainer-Smith.
14 Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü Yayinlarindan, 1:500,00 Ölcekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritası, Erzurum (Ankara, 1963)Google Scholar, Sivas (Ankara, 1966)Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., Sivas, pp. 90–1.
16 Op. Cit., Sivas, Plate III.
17 Op. Cit., Sivas, p. 68.
18 Op. Cit., Sivas, p. 72.
19 Op. Cit., Sivas, p. 81.
20 Op. Cit., Sivas, pp. 84–5.
21 Publications of the Mineral Research and Exploration Institute of Turkey, No. 118, Iron Ore Deposits of Turkey, (Ankara, 1964), p. 41 Google Scholar.
22 Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbooks, Turkey, Vol. 1, p. 184 Google Scholar.
23 Taylor, J. G., “Journal of a Tour in Armenia, Kurdistan and Upper Mesopotamia”, with Notes on Researches in the Deyisim Dagh, in 1866, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 38 (1868), p. 315 Google Scholar.
24 Pinder, D. A. and Witherick, M. E., “The Principles, Practice and Pitfalls of Nearest Neighbour Analysis”, Geography, 57 (1972), pp. 277–88Google Scholar.
25 Kopeç, R. J., “An Alternative Method for the Construction of Thiessen Polygons”, Professional Geographer, 15 (1963), pp. 24–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Chisholm, M., Rural Settlement and Land Use, (London, 1962), pp. 113–20Google Scholar.
27 Gould, P. R., “Man Against his Environment: A Game-theoretic Framework”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53 (1963), pp. 290–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 I am grateful to my colleague, Dr. M. J. Clark, for much helpful discussion in the preparation of this contribution.
