SOMA 2009: Proceedings of the XIII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Selcuk University of Konya, Turkey 23-24 April 2009 9781407307565, 9781407337517

Citation preview

BAR S2200 2011

SOMA 2009 Proceedings of the XIII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Selcuk University of Konya, Turkey 23-24 April 2009

ONIZ & ASLAN (Eds)

Edited by

Hakan Oniz Erdogan Aslan

SOMA 2009

B A R

BAR International Series 2200 2011

SOMA 2009 Proceedings of the XIII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Selcuk University of Konya, Turkey 23-24 April 2009 Edited by

Hakan Oniz Erdogan Aslan                                            

BAR International Series 2200 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2200 SOMA 2009 © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2011 The conference was supported by the General Association of Mediterranean Archaeology www.genama.info The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407307565 paperback ISBN 9781407337517 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307565 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Scientific Commitee of SOMA2009 Prof.Dr. Ahmet Adil Tirpan Prof.Dr. Ahmet Denker Assist.Prof.Dr. Sengul Aydingun Assoc.Prof.Dr. Asuman Baldiran Assist.Prof.Dr. Ertekin Doksanalti Assist.Prof.Dr. Mehmet Tekocak Dr. Ehud Galili Dr. Sergey Zelenko Erdoğan Aslan (Ph.D.Candidate) Aytekin Büyüközer (Ph.D.Candidate) Hakan Oniz (Ph.D.Candidate)

Organization Committee of SOMA2009 Prof.Dr. Ahmet Adil Tirpan Assoc. Prof. Dr.Asuman Baldıran Assist.Prof.Dr. Ertekin Doksanalti Assist.Prof.Dr Mehmet Tekocak Dr. Deniz Sevmen Hakan Oniz Erdogan Aslan, Aytekin Büyüközer Suhal Saglan, Metin Özdemir Güzin Özkan, Yasemin İnceelgil Nilgun Armutcu, Hatice Korkmaz Ufuk Erdogan, Tarık Turkusever Mustafa Çimen, Mustafa Kagitci Fatma Pekel, Onur Asan

Editing Assistants Burcu Adıguzel, Serap Arslan

Address Selcuk University Faculty of Letters Department of Archaeology 42049 Konya/TURKEY Tel : +90 332 223 1389 Fax : +90 332 2411309 [email protected]

www.selcuk.edu.tr

Contents Some Kerch-Type Pelikai from Mylasa......................................................................................................... 1 Abuzer Kızıl Rams and Ramming in Antiquity................................................................................................................. 13 Ahmet Adil Tırpan and Erdogan Aslan A 3D Reconstruction of a Nautical Legend: Archimedes and the Naval Defence of Syracuse................... 15 Ahmet Denker, Hakan Öniz and Ahmet Can Arıkan Land Use and Settlement Organisation in the Malatya-Elazığ Region between the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Alev Erarslan Rings from the Han Necropolis................................................................................................................... 27 A. Oğuz Alp Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauria ........................................................................................................... 33 Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız Typological Assessment of Roman Imperial-Era Nymphaeums of the Lycian, Pamphylian and Cilician Regions........................................................................................................................................... 45 Ayşe F. Erol The Dams of the Stratonikeia Region.......................................................................................................... 53 Coskun Dasbacak Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel: An Endangered Cultural Resource ..................... 57 Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen Some Wineries of the Lykaonia and Isauria Regions ................................................................................. 67 Erdoğan Aslan, Osman Doğanay and Güngör Karauğuz Three Items of Hellenistic Glassware from the Karaman Museum............................................................. 75 Ertekin M. Doksanaltı Attic Imports to Anatolia: The Construction of a Reference Framework.................................................... 81 Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello An Ethnobotanical Plant from the Hittite Flora: Hatalkišni-....................................................................... 93 Güngör Karauğuz and Murat Aydın Şanda Colonization in Western Sicily: An Indigenous Response through Skyphoi Analysis ............................... 99 Lori Bratton and Michael J. Kolb Ornamental Architectural Pieces from the Karaman Citadel..................................................................... 107 İ. Mete Mimiroğlu and Murat Karademir A Group of Red Slip Ware from the Akşehir Museum.............................................................................. 115 Mehmet Tekocak and Volkan Yıldız Toilet Culture and ‘Latrinas’ in Asia Minor............................................................................................... 123 Murat Taşkıran, Ömer Uzunel and Aysun Topaloğlu Muezzin Mahfils in Ottoman-Period Mosques in Konya.......................................................................... 131 Mustafa Cetinaslan

i

Timber Decoration in the Houses of the Akseki İlvat Villages ................................................................. 137 Necla Akkaya The Excavations of the Kızılburun Column Wreck .................................................................................. 145 Orkan Köyağasıoğlu and Deborah N. Carlson ‘The Shipwrecks of Anatolia Project 2008’: Ancient Shipwreck Survey off the Bodrum Peninsula........ 151 Orkan Köyağasıoğlu Farmers and their Equipment: As Depicted on some Reliefs from the Isauria Region............................. 155 Osman Doğanay The Prometheus Myth and Ferula: A Mediterranean Ethno-Botanical Story............................................ 161. Osman Doğanay, Mustafa Cevik and Hasibe Günay Byzantine Stone Artefacts in the Private Koyunoglu City Museum of the Konya Metropolitan Municipality ............................................................................................................................................ 165 Osman Kunduracı and İlker Mete Mimiroglu A Stylistic-Syntactical Analysis of Nabataean Painted Fine Ware ........................................................... 171 Renate Storli Archaeological Investigations on Istanbul’s Lake Kucukcekmece and River Basin ................................ 179 Sengul Aydingun and Hakan Oniz ITA Istanbul Prehistoric Survey Researches in 2008 ................................................................................ 183 Sengul Aydingun and Emre Guldogan Cognitive Evolution and the Concept of Environmental Hygiene in Anatolia in Ancient Times: From Hittite to Roman .............................................................................................................................. 187 Sükran Sevimli Windmills of the Bodrum Peninsula ......................................................................................................... 195 Tolga Bozkurt The Waterwheel Tympanum in Ancient Times ......................................................................................... 201 Tunç Sezgin Underwater Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Black Sea Area in the 20th Century ............ 205 Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina Wooden Combs from the Shipwreck Excavations at Novy Svet, on the Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine ............................................................................................................................................ 209 Yana Morozova and Sergii Zelenko Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region ................................................................. 213 Gülay Apa

ii

Some Kerch-Type Pelikai from Mylasa Abuzer Kızıl Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Science and Letters, Muğla, Turkey

Among the finds obtained from the tomb excavations (4th century B.C.) at Mylasa – one of the significant ancient cities of the Karia region and the first governmental centre of the Karia Satrapy during Persian times – was an important group of pelikai known as ‘Kerch Type’. The decoration on these vessels in the 4th century B.C. often featured a female head, horse and gryphon protomes, representing an Amazon/gryphon confrontation; Eros and Satyrs were also included among the subjects depicted on one side of the red-figure pelikai, illuminating the relationships between Mylasa and Attica, and on the other side there were generally standing figures and ritual scenes, including altars. The pelikai that we are considering here may be dated to the second half of the 4th century B.C.

Style ceramics feature strong ornamental views and plastic significance as well. Subject and composition on pelikai and other Kerchtype vases In this century the understanding of polychrome decoration featured the use of white, yellow, blue and green. Scenes were based on daily life as well as mythological incidents. Kerch-style figures are livelier than those of such artists as the Meidias Painter. Each of the figures stands individually and gives the impression of sculpture and a disconnection between the figures. The glances of the figures are turned towards the front or into the distance. Female figures are widely used. The harmony between vase and scene is more considered compared to previous styles and pottery forms. The figures fill the entire surface of the vase without leaving any space and although the figures are positioned at different heights on the vase, perspective is still visible. Like sculptures, the figures create atmosphere by their actions and their three-dimensional rendering.

Geographical position of Kerch (Pantikapaion) and a brief historical view of the city A busy port on the shores of the northern Black Sea, Kerch is located on the ancient city of Pantikapaion: a colony of Miletos. Like other Hellenic cities established on the shores of the Bosporus, Kerch was established after the dispersal of the local Scythians from the territories. It was the capital city and an important settlement of the Bosporus Empire. The city was constructed near the channel known as the Cimmerian Bosporus, where Lake Maiotis and the Black Sea join. The city was governed over a long period by various kings, such as Leuko, Satyrs and Parisades.

Form development in pelikai One of the most common forms of the 4th century B.C., pelikai, a type of amphora, are widely known in the literature. There was a significant form change between early and late examples. In the early examples, the body is more rounded, the neck is short, the lugs on the shoulders are smaller and the mouth narrower and flatter.4

Kerch ceramics and other ceramic developments

Pelikai from the first quarter of the 4th century B.C. are characterized by their dropping bodies, wide mouths with outer intended edges, longer necks and lugs descending to the shoulder from the bottom of the mouth. From the middle of this period, the width of the mouth had begun to almost equal the body width.

There was one final boom in vase painting during the revival of Attica around 370, in the 2nd quarter of the 4th century B.C., and Attic ceramics were widely exported. However, the markets of north and south Italy being closed, new market areas were opened. Among these ceramics there are a number of very famous and beautiful pieces,1 with many examples turning up in Kerch, the busy port on the northern shore of the Black Sea, and in the tombs near ancient Pantikapaion. This style that developed in the 4th century B.C. in Keramaikos has become known therefore as the ‘Kerch Style’,2 and all indications are that production was mainly based on export trade.

Schefold has separated pelikai into five main groups by considering the specific characteristics from the 4th century B.C.5 Pelikai from Mylasa6 The ancient city of Mylasa has a great importance for western Anatolian archaeology (Fig.1). The Hekatomnoses, satraps under the Persians in the 4th century B.C., were from the city, which had its golden age in this period, and its importance was not decreased when Maussolos moved the seat of government to Halikarnassos.

According to the ancient sources and modern studies, the art of painting changed after the first quarter of the 4th century B.C.3 Vase painting, with a few exceptions, failed to match the advances in other forms of the art of painting, where lines were carefully drawn and geometrical proportions were represented on the human body. Kerch-

  Bothmer 1962, 9, Fig. 9-10.   Schefold 1934, 141-142. 6   Mylasan pelikai were previously discussed in a general study on local tombs, see Kızıl 2009, 397-463. Also pelikai no 5 and 8 were discussed in Çakıcı 1995, 321, 322, Res. 2-3, 6. 4 5

  Haspels 1946, 216.  Williams 1985, 112. 3   Haspels 1946, 216. 1 2

1

SOMA 2009 clear whether the woman in vase no 4 (Museum inventory no: 1451. H. 21cm, MD. 13cm, BD. 12cm) (Fig. 8-9) has a veil or not. The curled hair is interesting and probably the front part of the hair was parted. The faces of both women are painted white. Although there is not much detail in the horse protomes, there is a bridle on the horse in example no 3. The figures on side B of vase no 3, are more significant than the others. The sex of the figures cannot be identified clearly and the arms of the figures connecting under the coat are in contact with each other. It is also obvious that one of the legs is extended straight forward by bending the knee. Although there is a similar scene on side B of vase no 4, the figures and lines are not clearly identical.

The nine pelikai discussed in this study are all tomb finds. Kerch-type vase forms are different in other regions and no other vase form, with the exception of pelikai in Mylasa tombs, has yet been found.7 The clay, without mica, is pinkish in colour. Some of the examples exhibit disproportions with the lugs and poor workmanship, such as bad kiln drying. The surfaces of most of the pelikai are either covered with lime, or exfoliation, and flaking to the glaze can be seen. As with other Kerch vases found over a wide area, the Mylasa pelikai do not show much in the way of colour variation. This situation seems common for the entire Anatolia region, with the exception of few examples.8 Pelikai are mostly found in sarcophagi of various forms as well as simple and small tombs, with sides supported by stone slates. Only once to date has a Kerch-type pelike been found in a burial chamber of Hellenistic period.9

Group 3. This group consists of four pelikai. The B sides of the pelikai have similar ritual scenes, with altars between the figures, who are wearing hymations. Pelike no 5. (Museum inventory no: 1981. H. 20.3cm, MD. 11.5cm, BD. 8.3cm) (Fig. 10-11) A gryphon protome looks left a left turning women with her head in profile. The gryphon is standing, frightened by the spear before it. The woman has a long nose and her mouth slightly open; her lower lip is thick and slightly turned down. Her hat drops towards the nape of her neck and its edges are decorated with broken lines. It is difficult to explain the discontinuance of the two thick lines drawn from the middle of her brow to behind her ears. A curl of hair drops down from the temple. A necklace, consisting of single line, on her neck is also seen on the gryphon. On side B, a religious ritual scene is depicted. There is a rectangle altar in between two figures standing, dressed in coats. The figure on the left holds a round object that is separated into four parts by crossed lines, and each part of the object is decorated by a point. The other figure gives offerings. On both sides the scenes are limited by the elliptical band in the upper and lower part. The edge of the mouth is also decorated with an elliptical band in the same manner.

Within the assemblage here discussed, some of the pelikai can be grouped, i.e. a single female head and a single female head with horse-head form a group having the same theme. Other pelikai do not form groupings. In terms of composition, on the front surfaces of two pelikai there are crowded scenes. Pelikai groupings Group 1. No. 1-2. This group is represented by two pelikai. On the ‘A’ sides of these pelikai there is a female head turned to the right in profile, and the ‘B’ sides feature two human figures standing, wearing hymations (flared coats), in conversation. On both sides of the vases the figures are limited by the elliptical border both on the upper part and lower parts. The figures made schematically are not located exactly in the centre of the body but are located to the left. In Pelike no 1 (Museum inventory no: 2615, H. 21cm, MD. 13cm, BD. 9.5cm) the details in the figures are more recognizable (Fig. 2-3). In pelike no 2 (Museum inventory no: 3079. H. 20cm, MD. 12cm.) the details have disappeared due to surface calcification along with the bad workmanship (Fig. 4-5).

Pelike no 6. (Museum inventory no: 2634. H. 17.5cm, MD. 11cm, BD. 7.5cm.) (Fig. 12-13) On side A of this pelike there is gryphon and Amazon confronting each other. The gryphon on the left of the scene is attacking the Amazon, who appears to be stepping back to avoid contact. Despite the angry face of the Gryphon the Amazon remains calm faced. The Amazon wears a sleeveless cloth descending to the knees and held up with a belt under the chest. The thin cloth she wears under her main garment is decorated with black points. She holds a shield on her left arm and in her right hand is the weapon she is about to thrust into the beast. The weight of the body is on the left leg for this defensive stance and her left foot is planted firmly on the ground, with the front of the right foot slightly raised. The Amazon’s posture is reminiscent of certain reliefs in the Mausoleion. The shield and the body of the Gryphon, except the wings, are painted in white. The line that twists down on the shield, the upper part of which is cut away for the spear to be used, is snake-like. There are round objects between the legs of the Amazon and under the stomach of the Gryphon. These are similar to those the left figures are

Group 2. (No. 3-4). This group is also represented by two pelikai. On the A side there is a female head looking to the right and horse protome. On the B sides there are two figures standing in discussion wearing flared coats. The scenes, limited by the elliptical frame, are spread over almost the entire surface of the body, contrary to Group 1. The mouth edges are also decorated by the elliptical border. The female heads are covered by thin veils. The front of the veil of the woman in pelike no 3 (Museum inventory no: 2905. H. 18.5cm, MD.11.1 cm, BD. 6.6cm) (Fig.6-7) is decorated with short lines. It is not definitely   Although there were no Kerch-type vases in Milas with the exception of pelike, a Kerch type crater was found in the ancient Belentepesi rural settlement during excavations in 2007 from a tomb not yet published; it is an important find with respect to the relations of the region with Attica. 8  A fine example of pelikai from Anatolia (which are scarce) can be seen in the Antalya museum, see, Akarca 1950, 31-36, Res. 1-3. 9  Akarca 1952, 367-398. 7

2

Abuzer Kizil: Kerch Type Pelikai from Mylasa The female figure, to whom the mirror is held, wears a wide garment descending to her feet. The figure leans back on the right foot as if frightened. While it tries to hold the right hand of the naked figure, the left hand is bent at the elbow. The woman in a long garment on the left of the scene watches the scene in a seemingly relaxed manner. The figure in the middle is presumably Eros and the woman figure Aphrodite; the figure on the left is possibly a servant.

holding on side B of pelike no 5. There is a round object that is most probably an altar in between the two figures opposed to each other on side B. The action of the figure on the left cannot be determined as it is covered with lime scale. Slightly inclined to the front, the figure on the right extends its left hand to the round object (altar) in front of it. Although its right hand extends to the front at shoulder level, unfortunately what it holds can not be made out. There is a form of ritual scene here. The lower elliptical band, on which the figures are standing, surrounds the entire body. The upper band continues to the lugs. The edge of the mouth is decorated with an elliptical band. The lower parts of the lugs are decorated with a wide palmette pattern (Fig.14).

Side B shows a ritual scene that is often on other pelikai. There is a round object, possibly an altar, at knee level of both figures, who both have long and wide coats. The figure on the left holds a round object similar to a tambourine, of which the details are not recognizable; the figure on the right extends its right hand to the round altar below. Both figures extend their feet straight forward by slightly bending the knee.

Pelike no 7. (Museum inventory no: 2901 H. 19cm, MD. 15cm, BD. 9.8cm) (Fig. 15-16) This is a well-preserved example with fine workmanship among the Mylasa pelikai. Side A has a scene with three figures. In the middle, a woman sits on a chair and turns to the right; she has a long skirt covering her feet and wears a garment that extends over the skirt. The arms and face of the woman are pained white. She holds a round object in her left hand and extends the right hand straight forward, pointing to something with her index finger. The legs of the chair on which she sits do not come into contact with the ground. Opposite to the seated woman there is a naked and winged figure who bends forward, about to put its right shoe on. A flat-soled shoe, similar to a slipper, is suspended in the air. There seems to be a conversation between the figures and the seated woman is possibly giving instructions to the winged figure. On the left, a standing, half-naked satyr watches what is happening. He puts his left hand to his head and his right hand on his belly. He is bending his right leg at the knee and pushing the leg backward. His body weight is thus on the left foot.

The elliptical band forming the lower limits of the figures surrounds the entire body; the band forming the upper limit is short. The mouth edge of the pelike is decorated with an elliptical band. Pelike no 9. (Museum inventory no: None. H. Preserved H. 14cm, MD. 13cm (measurements are approximate) (Fig. 20-21) Only the head and neck parts of these vases are preserved. On the conserved part of side A of the vase there is a winged figure holding a thyrsus, and behind this figure is the front part of a feline, giving an impression that there may have been a figure on it. On the head of the feline there is a hanging object in the form of garland. On side B two figures face each other in hymations. Analogy Milas pelikai that have been obtained to date as tomb finds may be evaluated with respect to their subject, quality, and other red-figure Kerch-type vases dating to the 4th century B.C. It is clear, in this connection, that the Milas pelikai was a popular and preferred vase type at the time. There is also a similarity with the pelikai found in the tombs of Stratonikeria, an important city in the Hellenistic Period, located about 35km east of Mylasa.10 A similar example to our pelike no 6, in which there is a challenge between Gryphon and Amazon, is now in the Fethiye Museum, and there may be a possibility that this low-quality pelike, that has not yet been published, may came from Milas. The most specific difference between a pelike11 that comes from a tomb in Macedonia (out of Anatolia) and our vase is the difference in the shields that the Amazons are holding. There is a surprising similarity between the Gryphon/ Amazon confrontation as displayed on the pelike12 in the Madrid Archaeological Museum and our pelike. In a scene

On side B of the vase there is again a religious ritual. In between the two figures wearing wide coats there is an altar with its lower part being wider and more profiled. The altar is located on a stone base. While the figure on the right is about to place offerings the figure on the left is playing a round tambourine. The figures here are extremely schematic. The lines we see on the clothes of the other similar figures are not included here. These lines were either erased over time or were never drawn. The lower elliptical band on which the figures are standing surrounds the entire body. Amongst the elliptical bands limiting the figures on the upper part, those on side A are longer than those on side B. The lower parts of both lugs are decorated with opposing palmette patterns (Fig. 17). Pelike no 8. (Museum inventory no: 2926. H. 23cm, MD. 12.5cm, BD. 9.2cm) (Fig. 18-19) The scene on side A consists of three figures. The winged figure in the middle is in mid-air and holds a mirror to the woman on the right. The naked body of the figure, of which the sexual organs are depicted, is painted in white. The upper parts of its wings are striped and decorated with horizontal points.

10   For the Stratonikeia pelikai, which are similar, see the paper presented in 13th Mediterranean Archaeology Symposium (SOMA 2009) in Konya Selçuk University by Asuman Baldıran. A pelike that was published from Stratonikeia was dated to IVth century B.C. See Boysal 1987, 62, Res. 8; Baldıran 1991, 48, Res. 4. 11  Videski 2009, (http://www.mav.mk/article.php?lang=en&article=15). 12   Schefold 1934, Taf. 23, Nr. 516.

3

SOMA 2009 In pelike no 7, with its crowded scene, the sitting figure is presumably Aphrodite (or Ariadne?) and the opposite figure might be Eros, putting on his shoe. There is the sense of preparation for a ceremony. This is differentiated from other Mylasa pelikai by its palmette pattern under the lugs.

on a pelike in the Leningrad Hermitage Museum there is an Amazon behind the Gryphon, and this is an important difference.13 The female head and horse protome pelikai form an important group for this period and they are in the majority amongst the pelikai that have been found so far in Mylasa. Another pelike that we may include in this group was found among the Hellenistic tombs and previously published by Akarca.14 Amongst the pelikai that were found in the tombs of Startonieka, a similar female head and horse protome is a very parallel;15 a pelike from the Çanakkale Museum has the same iconographic decoration. On side A of the pelike found in Olynthos there is Amazon, and on side B there is a confrontation between Amazon and Gryphon.16 On side A of the other pelike there is a similar Amazon and Gryphon challenge.17 Two pelikai18 from New Haven and some others found in Kerch tombs also have Amazon and horse depictions.19 On a pelike that was published by Schefold, extraordinarily, a horse protome was depicted with a man’s head20 and having curly hair and beard; the edge of the covering of the man’s head is decorated with a wave pattern.

In pelike no 8, the naked white figure in the middle of the scene in which there is more than one figure is probably Eros and the woman that Eros holds a mirror for could be Aphrodite. Here, the size of the Eros figure and its involvement as one of the main figures attract attention. In other coetaneous Kerch vases, the Eros drawn in different positions is not involved as the main figure.27 On a pelike in the Çanakkale Museum, Eros holds an object that is similar to a branch in his right hand up to the head of a woman opposite him. The standing position of the Eros on the Çanakkale pelike is similar to the figure in our version. We see a closely similar scene to that on pelike no 7 on a hydria in Salonika. On this vase, the female figure in a sitting position in the centre, with no stool or similar item beneath her, is interpreted as Ariadne. Other similar points are the way the Eros bends in front of Ariadne and the Satyr behind (this hydra is dated to 370/60). 28

Another group among Kerch-type vases consists of pelikai decorated with gryphon protome and female head, and only a single example represents this group among the Mylasa pelikai. In our example, while the female head is behind the gryphon, in the examples from Stuttgart21 and Leningrad22 both figures are standing opposite each other. In another example from Leningrad, a gryphon is positioned behind the female head.23 On a pelike found in a tumulus tomb in Ainea, in Macedonia, the female head is positioned between two gryphons.24 On another vase found in Çamlık (Milas), and since published, a gryphon and horse stand opposite each other.25

On side A of pelike no 9 there is a rare scene that includes a winged figure holding a thyrsos in its hand and a spotted predator; this scene may be partly incomplete. However, in most scenes, for example on the pelike from Stratonikeia, there is a thyrsos in the hand of Heracles fighting with Nessos.29 The predator, a feline of some nature, perhaps a cheetah, has a very wide-eyed expression. Its eyes are bulging and a side of the mouth is slightly open. There is a ritual scene, as with most pelikai, on side B. Iconography

With the exception of our example, so far there are no known pelikai that present a single head on one side as described,

Composing a significant group of the last phase of Attica red-figure vase drawing, Kerch-type vases are important as impressive examples of change and innovation experienced in this century. Along with polychrome characteristics, the other main feature is the concentration on specific ways in which the subjects are treated. Confrontation subjects, such as Amazon/Gryphon, Amazon/Arimasp, seen on crater and oinochoe vases are uncommon on our Mylasa pelikai. Painted with different subjects on the A sides, the B sides of the pelikai are decorated with figures including single or double-headed, hymation-clothed and performing offerings in general.

Among the vases on which one side depicts a single standing figure,26 an example found in Milas, and now published, has a close similarity to our vessel with respect to both subject and form. On these pelikai the body is more rounded and the neck shorter. Compared to other examples, this form gives a shorter, squatter impression for these pelikai.

While Schefold thinks that female heads seen on these vases may be represent a goddess, perhaps Aphrodite,30 Baur interprets such female and horse-head scenes as an Amazon walking next to her horse.31 Thompson interpreted

  Schefold 1934, Taf. 5, Nr. 381.  Akarca 1952, 377–379, Pl. LXXXIII, No.1. 15   See note 12. 16   Robinson 1933, no. 267, Pl. 120. 17   Robinson 1933, no. 268, Pl. 121. 18   Baur 1922, 136, (Fig. 37, p.109); no. 137 (Fig. 37, p.109). 19  Thompson 1934, 427, note 5. 20   Schefold 1934, Abb. 85, Slg. Calvert S.148. 21   Schefold 1934, Taf. 25, nr. 469. 22   Schefold 1934, Taf. 25, nr. 461. 23  Schefold 1934, Taf. 25, nr. 490. 24  Touratsoglou 1995, Fig.134. 25  Akarca 1952, Pl. XCV. 26  Akarca 1952, Pl. LXXXIV. 13 14

27   For example see, Schefold 1934, Taf. 4, Nr. 515; Taf. 5, Nr. 403; Taf. 33, Nr. 346. 28   Schefold 1934,155, Abb.82. 29   Boysal 1987, Res. 8; Baldıran 1991, Res. 4. 30   Schefold 1934, 147 et al. 31  Baur 1922 91–92. However, it should be noted that the horse figure is also involved on Mylasa coins and the horse has a special meaning for

4

Abuzer Kizil: Kerch Type Pelikai from Mylasa the fight between Gryphon and Amazon on side A as the war between Gryphons and Barbarians,32 and the figures on the side B as Epheboses.33 Pfuhl thinks that such scenes are the simplified descriptions of the challenge between Amazons and Gryphons.34 The identifying factor in this subject is interpreted as the coverings on the heads of the female figures, but it is not certain.

manufactured together and imported from the same workshop. The pelikai depicting the Gryphon and Amazon confrontation found in the tombs in Isar Marvinci (Macedonia) were dated to the middle of the 4th century B.C.46 Figures47 on the scenes on a Kerch-style hydria dated to 370/60 B.C. from Salonika and figures on pelike no 6 are close in aspect. Fragments from a pelike found in the Corinth forum, and showing a winged Eros riding a horse48 on side A, and side B depicting figures white striped heads and hymation clothing, are dated to 370 B.C. approximately.49

Painters Among the Milas pelikes we are discussing, those including horse protome, Gryphon protome, female head, and Gryphon/Amazon confrontation scene on side A, and pelikes including single or double-hymation on both sides (nos 1-5) may belong to the G or F.B. Group Painters from the 4th century B.C., according to the classification made by Beazley with respect to scene, style and compositional characteristics.35 Among the pieces credited to the Gryphon Painter there are some important examples, such as those from Bodrum,36 Anatolia, and other pelike examples from Myrina37 and Mylasa.38

There is a great similarity with respect to form and decoration between the Mylasa pelikai and two pelikai found in the south room of Crypt B in the Athens Agora.50 These vases are dated to about 325 B.C., along with their parallels from Olynthos,51 Chatby,52 and southern Russia.53 54

Another important criterion for dating the pelikai is the significant narrowing of the necks of the pelikai during the fourth quarter of this century.

Chronology By comparing Mylasa vessels found in tombs with either contextual findings, or Kerch vases from other centres, it is possible to reach a certain historical period. Pelike no 6 was found with a kylix in its mouth. This kylix can be dated to the middle of 4th century B.C. by comparison to other examples found in Labraunda,39 the sacred site of Mylasa, and in the Athens Agora,40 which are also dated to the middle of 4th century B.C. A glass phiale having Akamenid characteristics found in the same sarcophagus with the pelike no 2 is an important find for the satrapy period of Mylasa and a dating criterion.41 Rich cloth applications on a type of badge found mostly in sarcophagi- or sarcophagus-type tombs of Mylasa, along with the pelikai, attract attention as indicators of the status levels of the satrapy period.42 Found along with the golden cloth decorations in a sarcophagus tomb in Milas, a plain oinochoe may be dated to the middle 4th century B.C. with respect to its form.43

With the help of these stylistic features and contextual findings, we are able to date examples nos 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Mylasa pelikai to the middle of the 4th century B.C., and examples nos 3, 4 and 7 to the last quarter of the same century. The Gryphon/Amazon confrontation depictions on the red-figure vase paintings of the Late Classical Age, which was dominated by the arts of sculpture and painting, may be compared to several frieze reliefs with respect to style.55 In almost all the tombs where pelikai in Mylasa were found, an important feature was the inclusion of a mastos (Fig. 22-23). Red-glazed plain pelikai, which are the followers of the red-figure pelikai of the Hellenistic Period, were found with a mastos in the same way. In an excavated tomb, an in situ mastos was found in the mouth of the pelike (Fig. 24).

There is a close similarity between our pelikai and the pelikai found in tombs44 excavated in Milas previously, and from neighbouring Stratonikeia tombs,45 that are dated to the 4th century B.C. These vases were probably

Bibliography and Abbreviations Akarca, A. 1950. ‘Antalya Müzesinde Varsak’tan Gelme Bir Kerch vazosu’, Belleten XIV, 53, 1950, 31-36. Akarca, A. 1952. ‘Mylasa’da Hellenistik Bir Mezar’, Belleten 16, 1952, 367-398. Akarca, A. 1959. Les monnaies grecques de Mylasa, Paris.

Mylasa; see. Akarca 1959, 63-64 Lev. 4, 27-32; 5, 33-35; 15, 1-5; 16, 1-8). 32  Thompson 1934, 333. 33  Thompson 1934, 427. 34   Pfuhl 1923, II, 713. 35   Beazley 1963, 1462-1471; 1484-1494. 36   Beazley 1963, 1464/62. 37   Beazley 1963, 1467/107. 38   Beazley 1963, 1463/19. 39   Hellstrom 1971, 12-14, Nos. 24-61. 40   Sparkes-Talcott 1970, 275, Fig. 6:558. 41  Yağcı 1996, 312-327, Pl. II, IV, V. 42   Kızıl 1997, 57-59, Drawing 3-5, Fig., 3-5; Kızıl 2009, Res. 18, 20, 32; Çakıcı 1995, 322, Res. 4, 7. 43   Kızıl 2009, Res. 18, 20, 32. 44  Akarca 1952, 377-379, 386-387 No. 1-3 Lev. 83, 1; 84, 3. 45   Baldıran 1991, 47-48, Res. 4.

 Videski 2009, (http://www.mav.mk/article.php?lang=en&article=15).   Schefold 1934,155, Abb.82. 48   Mounted Eros figures on red-figure Attic vases are seen after 400 B.C. See, Beazley 1963, 89, no.174. 49   McPhee 1987, 279, Pl. 47, Fig.1. 50  Thompson 1934, 332-334 Fig. 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b. 51   Robinson 1933, No. 267 Pl. 120; No. 268 Pl. 121. 52   Breccia 1912, No. 91-92. 53  Thompson 1934, 427 note 5. 54  Thompson 1934, 332, 427429. 55   Boysal 1967, 80-82, Res. 95-99. 46 47

5

SOMA 2009 Berlin 13-15 Oktober 2005 (Herausgeben von Frank Rumscheid), 397-463. McPhee, I 1987. ‘Attic Red Figure from the Forum in Ancient Corinth’, Hesperia, Vol. 56, No. 3. Pfhul, E. 1923, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen II, Munich, 713. Robinson, D. B. 1933. Olynthus V, 1933. Schefold, K. 1934. Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen. Sparkes-Talcott, B. A. 1970. The Athenian Agora XII, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B. C., Princeton, 275, fig. 6:558. Thompson, H. 1934. ‘Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery’, Hesperia III. Touratsoglou, I. 1995. Macedonia, History, Monuments, Museums, Athens. Videski, Z. 2009. ‘Red-figure Painted Ceramics: Isar Marvinci (excavations 2009)’, Macedonian Archaeological News, Number 3, Volume I, October. Williams, D. 1985, Greek Vases. Yağcı, E. E. 1996. ‘Akhaemenid Cam Kaseleri ve Milas Müzesi’nden Yayınlanmamış İki Örnek’, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1995 Yıllığı, Ankara, 315-318 Lev. 2. 4-5.

Baldıran, A. 1991. ‘Nekropol Buluntularına Göre Stratonkeia’nın Tarihsel Süreci’, S.Ü. Fen – Edebiyat Fakültesi, Edebiyat Dergisi 6, 45-55. Baur, P. 1922. Stoddart Collection. Beazley, J. D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford. Beazley, J. D. 1963. In L. D. Caskey and J. D. Beazley, Attic Vase-paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston III, Boston. Bothmer, von, D. 1962. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 21, No.1. Boysal, Y. 1967. Grek Klasik Devir Heykeltıraşlığı, Ankara. Boysal, Y. 1987. ‘Stratonikeia ������������������������� Nekropolonün tarihsel Süreci’, Remzi Oğuz Arık Armağanı, Ankara, 62, Res. 8. Breccia, E. 1912. Catalogue générale des antiquités égyptiennes museé d’Alexandrie; La Necropoli di Sciatbi, Cairo. Çakıcı, M. 1995. ‘Milas İlçesi Şevketiye Mahallesi 199 Ada 187 Parselde Yapılan Kurtarma Kazısı’, 5. MKKS, (Didim 1994), 321332. Haspels, E. 1946. Eski Yunan Boyalı Keramiği. Hellstrom, P. 1971. Labraunda, Pottery of Classical and Later Date, Terracotta Lamps and Glass, Lund. Kızıl, A. 1997. ‘Milas Sanayi Sitesi 1. Cad. 15 Parselde Çıkan Mezarı Kurtarma Kazısı’, VII. MKKS (8-10 Nisan 1996 Kuşadası-Aydın), Ankara, 57-66. Kızıl, A. 2009. ‘1990-2005 Yılları arasında Milas’ta Kurtarma Kazıları Yapılan Mezarlar ve Buluntuları Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme’, Die Karer un Anderen, Internationales Kolloquıum an der Freien Universitat,

Abbreviations B.D.: Base Diameter H.: Height Pl.: Plate Res.: Resim M.D.: Mouth Diameter. MKKS: Müze Kurtarma KazılarıSempozyumu

6

Abuzer Kizil: Kerch Type Pelikai from Mylasa

1. Karia Region

2. Pelike no. 1, Side A

3. Pelike no. 1, Side B

7

SOMA 2009

4.Pelike no. 2, side A

5. Pelike no. 2, side B

6. Pelike no. 3, side A

7. Pelike no. 3, side B

8. Pelike no. 4, side A

9. Pelike no. 4, side B 8

Abuzer Kizil: Kerch Type Pelikai from Mylasa

10. Pelike no. 5, side A

11. Pelike no. 5, side B

13. Pelike no. 6, side B

12. Pelike no. 6, side A

14. Pelike no. 6, palmet

15. Pelike no. 7, side A 9

SOMA 2009

16. Pelike no. 7, side B

17. Pelike no. 7, palmet

18. Pelike no. 8, side A

19. Pelike no. 8, side B

20. Pelike no. 9, side A

21. Pelike no. 9, side B

10

Abuzer Kizil: Kerch Type Pelikai from Mylasa

22. Inside of a tomb from Mylasa

23. Pelike no. 1 with mastos

24. Pelike with mastos (A Hellenistik grave from Mylasa) in situ

11

12

Rams and Ramming in Antiquity Ahmet Adil Tırpan and Erdogan Aslan Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Rams are fixtures to the bows of ships. From the Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean until today, rams have several purposes. They can be used to increase water speed and to break ice in the cold waters of Poles. However the main use of the ram was as a weapon (on the prow or below the waterline) for battering enemy ships in naval warfare. After the invention of the ram in antiquity, warships were no longer just for the transportation of troops, but weapons in their own right. Especially in the Bronze Age, ships with rams were highly effective but their importance lessened after the development of ‘Sea Fire’ (Greek fire) in the 7th century AD, and the later invention of cannon at the beginning of the 14th century AD.

coin images of Late Roman fleets as evidence.3 Samuel Mark has another approach: ‘Analyses of the Kuyunjik (Kouyunjik) relief and other data suggest Phoenicia probably did not build ships with rams before the Battle of Salamis. A review of Greek literature, iconography, and archaeology suggests the naval ram may have been a Greek invention, appearing at the earliest in the 6th century BC and possibly as late as the 5th century.’ In fact the Kuyunjik relief (8th c. BC.) shows the ram construction clearly.4 A further article shows another result of possible sea combat between Egyptians and the Sea Peoples (?). Two warships were depicted on the temple wall of Ramses III (12th c. B.C.).5 One of them is an Egyptian warship with lion-head prow and very similar to the normal ram. The other vessel is that of the Sea People, but it has no ram (Figs. 2a and 2b). Other evidence comes from the start of the Early Minoan periods (3100-2600 BC), including a clay boat model from Mochlos (Crete), continuing with the earliest term for ‘ram’ (émbolos), used in a Greek fragment by Hipponax (6th c. BC).6

The form of rams, their functions, dating and localization in Antiquity are still not fully explained. We will not be able to answer all the questions but archaeology can help in part. Rams and ramming over the last three centuries ‘The Ram’ was also a type of warship in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States navy: cannons were not yet powerful enough to penetrate the iron ships of the period. Ramming in these centuries was used until the invention of stronger sea cannons. The ram ship’s principal weapon is its own bow, hardened and reinforced to penetrate the hull of an enemy ship. This type of ship was also strengthened internally to avoid, or reduce, self-inflicted damage from the collision. These vessels were not sailing ships as they were less manoeuvrable. Warships of the Bronze Age had sails but they were not usually used in time of battle. Propulsion of warships in antiquity was by oarsmen, and propulsion of the 18th/19th century ‘Ram ships’ was by steam engine (Fig. 1). These ships were used during the American Civil War, and the 1866 war between Austria and Italy.1 Probably the last uses of ramming techniques were employed during the two World Wars. Many destroyers, smaller warships and coastguard boats,2 which had hardened bows, were used to attack surfaced submarines.

There are several types of rams seen in the antiquity. ‘Pointed rams’ were very effective at holing an enemy ship’s hull. According to Herodotus, a sea battle happened in the Straits of Sardinia off Alalia (535 BC) between the Phocaeans and a combined force from Carthage and Tyrrhenia. Probably pointed rams were used in this battle. The ‘blunt-ended ram’ was another form probably used in the 7th century BC. These rams may have been employed at Salamis (480 BC). Herodotus writes: ‘Armnias of Pauene, an Athenian, pushed out to the front and charged a ship, which being entangled with his, and the two not able to be parted, the others did now come to Aminias’ aid and joined battle.’ Another ancient historian, Aeschylus, also reports on Salamis: ‘Immediately ship against ship dashed its bronze-clad beak’ (The Persians, 408-409).7 According to many scholars, it was mostly the bronzeclad ram that was used in antiquity. A coin shows a threepronged naval ram that is probably made of bronze (Fig. 3). One of the most significant evidential finds was the ‘Athlit Ram’, a bronze ram from a Hellenistic (?) warship, 465kg in weight and 2.26m long, which was found off the coast of Israel (Fig 4).

Rams in Antiquity When was the first ram seen in antiquity, and where? Olaf Höckmann has written: ‘Representations of ram-like structures at the stern of warships mainly dating from the 5th century BC through to Late Antiquity suggest that ramming by the stern was an Illyrian tactic. When the Illyrian type of light warship, the Liburnian, was introduced into Macedonian (?), Etruscan, and Roman navies, so apparently were rams.’ He also has provided us with some 1 2

Höckmann 2000. Samuel Mark, The Earliest Naval Ram Maritime Studies Program, Texas A&M University at Galveston, PO Box 1675, Galveston, TX 77553–1675, USA 5 Zaraza Freidman, ‘Animal Figurehead Decorations on Ancients Ships’, SOMA 2008 Proceedings, BAR 1909, BAR Publishing, Oxford 2009, 194 6 Matthew Garnett Preidemore, The form, function and interrelations of Naval Rams: A study of Naval Rams from Antiquity, IJNA, 2008, 37 , 253–272 7 http://classics.mit.edu/Aeschylus/persians.html 3 4

  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/earlysh/rams.htm   Kurlansky 1997, 165.

13

SOMA 2009 Freidman, Z. 2009. ‘Animal Figurehead Decorations on Ancients FiguresShips’, in SOMA 2008 Proceedings, BAR 1909, BAR Publishing, Oxford, 194. Höckmann, O. 2000. ‘Stern Rams in Antiquity’, IJNA (also available online www.sciencedirect.com/science (July 2005)). Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, Penguin Books, New York, 165. Mark, S. (no date) ‘The Earliest Naval Ram’ Maritime Studies Program, Texas A&M University at Galveston, PO Box 1675, Galveston, TX 77553-1675, USA. Preidemore, M. G. 2008. ‘The form, function and interrelations of Naval Rams: A study of Naval Rams from Photo 1) "Colonel Ellet's Ram Fleet on the Mississippi" 19 Antiquity’, IJN, 253-72. 1862

The type and function of ram was important, but the ramming technique was crucial, requiring a highly-skilled crew and commander.8 Timing, speed, good weather conditions, site of battle and construction of ship/ram would often mean victory or defeat. Bibliography Casson, L. 1959. The Ancient Mariners, Minerva Press, London, 100-1.

Figures

  Lionel Casson, The Ancient Mariners, Minerva Press, London 1959, Figures 100-101

8

Photo 3) (162/1 B Danish N three-pro

Photo 1) "Colonel Ellet's Ram Fleet on the Mississippi" Fig 1.Fleet ‘Colonel Ellet’s Ram Fleet onPhoto the Mississippi’, Photo 1) "Colonel Ellet's Ram 2a) Egyptian1862 warship with lion-head prow 1862 on the Mississippi" 1862

Photo 3) A Greek bronze coin Arados in Ph Photo 3) A Greek bronze coin(162/1 Arados in Phoenicia B.C. = Sylloge Nummorum Graecor (162/1 B.C. = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 36 Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 36cf) shows three-pronged naval ram.a three-pronged naval ram.

Photo 2a) Egyptian warship with lion-head prow Photo 2a) Egyptian warship with lion-head prow Photo 2b)‘Sea Sea People depiction fromfrom Medinat Fig 2a. Egyptian warship with lion-head prow Fig 2b. People’ship vessel depiction Habu Medinat Habu

Photo 4) Haifa, Is

Photo 4) Athlit Ram, National Maritime Mu Photo 4) Athlit Ram, NationalHaifa, Maritime Israel.Museum in Haifa, Israel. Photo 2b) Sea People ship depiction from Medinat Photo 2b) Sea People ship depiction Habu from Medinat Habu Fig 3. A Greek bronze coin from Arados in Phoenicia (162/1 B.C. = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 36cf), showing a three-pronged naval ram

Fig 4. The ‘Athlit Ram’, National Maritime Museum, Haifa

14

A 3D Reconstruction of a Nautical Legend: Archimedes and the Naval Defence of Syracuse Ahmet Denker, Hakan Öniz and Ahmet Can Arıkan TRNC, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Girne American University, Girne TRNC, Underwater Research and Imaging Centre, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus 3D Reconstruction and Animation

As one of the best known figures in history Archimedes is usually referred to as Archimedes of Syracuse. His defence of his hometown Syracuse against the protracted siege of the Roman navy retains a distinct place in history as being one of the most epic legends of naval defence. Archimedes challenged the Roman navy by his skills and became an heroic figure in the minds of the Mediterranean people. He acquired the status a hero not only among historians but also in the eyes of scientists, showing how the subtle powers of science could overwhelm even the force of the Romans. This article presents a 3D reconstruction of the legendary naval defence systems of Archimedes which enabled the soldiers of Syracuse to resist the Roman siege for three years.

In 2005 the face of Tutankhamun, the most famous Pharaoh of Egypt, was reconstructed using 3D computer graphics.2 The techniques used inspired us to employ the technique in our research. By employing this technique we had already reconstructed various underwater archaeological artefacts from the eastern Mediterranean, which we had found in the Kelenderis and Kaleburnu regions. The usefulness of this method rested in its ability to show underwater artefacts in their original form without disturbing them. The results which were presented in certain international symposia met with interest3 and we undertook to use the same process for the legend of Archimedes at Syracuse.

Introduction

Steps of 3-D Reconstruction

The famous Archimedes, who shouted ‘Eureka, Eureka’ is also known to have said ‘Give me a place to stand on, and I can move the earth‘. Although he never managed to move the earth, through the compound pulley systems which he invented, he managed to delay the attacking Roman general Marcellus and his battleships in the bay of Syracuse in 214 BC for three years, at the end which Syracuse could no longer resist and fell. Stories from Plutarch describe the machines invented by Archimedes to defend Syracuse:1 ‘With such forces and preparations were the Romans assaulting the town that the Syracusans were stupefied in fear, believing that nothing was able to resist such violence. Nonetheless Archimedes started to ply his machines. A ship was frequently captured by the iron beak of a crane, lifted up to a great height in the air, dashed into the sea from the highest point and left to submerge.’

The starting point for our 3D reconstruction was the modelling of a trireme, the famous battleships the Romans used in the siege. Other elements of the scene are reconstructed by following similar steps. A 2D sketch (Fig 1) has been used as reference; in addition we also utilised the photographs of a trireme solid model, which showed the battleship from different viewpoints. There are a variety of methods used for graphical modelling. We utilised a technique known as ‘box modelling,’ developed from the techniques of the Old Masters of sculpture. Artists would start sculpting the marble after first sketching their models from front, back and sides. Computer graphics modellers work with a material which is much more flexible and softer than solid marble. This is in effect a ‘virtual’ block of marble: a box. By moving a verlex, an edge or a surface of this box you can reshape it into any form required.

The machine Plutarch describes worked as follows: Against the attacking ships, a swinging iron beak of a crane was fastened on some part of the prow where it could get a hold under the guidance of a soldier. The beak of the crane, once fastened, lifted the prow and suspended the vessel upright on its stern. Thereafter the soldier fastened a lever of his machine so that it could not be moved and then suddenly slackened the chain by means of a rope and pulley. The result was that the vessel in question heeled over and fell on its side; some capsized, while most sank. A sketch of this naval defence system is shown in Fig. 1.

To model the trireme, the ‘box’ has been reshaped by applying to the edges certain modifying options. A screen capture is shown in Fig. 2, showing the first modelling steps. By ‘box modelling’, a ship has been formed with sharp edges and corners. Afterwards, by using ‘smoothing’ functions, sharp contours were softened and lines were replaced by curves. The results are shown in Fig. 3. Subsequent to the ‘smoothing’ operation, material samples collected from illustrations of the remnants of ships of that   ‘The Face of Tutankhamun Reconstructed’, BBC News, 2005.   Denker et al. 2008a; 2008b, 2009.

2

  ‘Bilimin Arka Yüzü’, Bilim ve Teknik, 328, (1965), s. 216-220.

1

3

15

SOMA 2009 era were mapped to the surface of the ship. Fig. 4 shows the appearance of the model after mapping. Parts outside the main body (e.g. sails) are modelled by using planes; masts are modelled by using cylinders. Once an oar is modelled it is duplicated and arrayed in accordance with the reference model. The prow of the ship is modelled separately from the main body and afterwards connected to it. On the prow of the trireme there are eyes to strike fear into enemies. These were modelled separately in 2D and thereafter mapped into their respective places.

system. The beak of the crane captures the ship by its prow in the 30th frame, and raises it. Simultaneously the rod, the ropes pulled by the Syracusans and working animals, follow their coordinated movements. With the slackening of the pulleys, the ship heels over and falls on its side, and sinks. Results and Conclusions The rendered pictures captured from animation are shown in Figs. 6-8. Fig. 6 shows the trireme approaching the shore, In Fig. 7 the vessel is lifted by its prow, and in Fig. 8 we see it sinking.

Similar steps were employed for the rest of the defence system and the environmental background. Fig. 5 shows the defence system and its location.

With the advent of computer graphics it is possible to reconstruct and relive this legendary story of the defence of Syracuse, in which the main hero is Archimedes.

Animation After the completion of the modelling and reconstruction of the trireme, the animation stage followed. Motion ability is assigned to each element upon the respective planes where they are expected to move. The trireme was given the ability to float on the sea surface (x-y) plane, until it reaches near the shore, to the vicinity of the crane. The beak of the crane has been given a translational motion capability along the z-axis. This has been linked to the rod, the top of which has also been also given a rotational capability around the x-axis. All the elements in the crane system have been hierarchically linked to each other. The animation is composed of approximately 180 frames. In the first 30 frames the battleship approaches the crane

Bibliography Denker, A. and Öniz, H. 2008a. ‘3D Reconstruction of Antique Anchors Using Computer Graphics’, SOMA 2008. KKTC Denker, A. and Öniz, H. 2008b. ‘Doğu Akdeniz Sualtı Antik Batıklarının Bilgisayarlı Grafik Yöntemleriyle Üç Boyutlu Rekonstruksiyonu’, SBT 2008, İzmir. Denker, A., Öniz, H. and Arıkan, A. C. 2009. ‘3D Reconstruction of A Nautical Myth Using Computer Graphics’, 3rd Int. Symp. On Underwater Research, TRNC.

Fig. 1: Sketch of Archimedes’ defence system

Fig. 2: The first stages of ‘box modelling’

16

d

Ahmet Denker, Hakan Öniz and Ahmet Can Arıkan: A 3D Reconstruction of a Nautical Legen

Fig. 3: After ‘smoothing’ process

Fig. 4: After material mapping process

Fig. 5: Crane system and location

Fig. 6: Assaulting the trireme

Fig. 7: Trireme captured and lifted

Fig. 8: Sinking trireme

17

18



Land Use and Settlement Organisation in the Malatya-Elazığ Region between the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC Alev Erarslan Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Turkey

The beginning of the 4th millennium BC is called the Late Chalcolithic Period in the eastern Anatolia region. It refers to the indigenous groups of northern regions in the 4th millennium BC who were known as the ‘Local Late Chalcolithic’ cultures, to distinguish them from the intrusive Uruk colonies of the mid- to late-4th millennium. This period is a time of increasing social and economic complexity in these regions. A large number of indigenous societies were organized into complex, hierarchically structured regional systems and achieved a high degree of economic, political and social complexity in the first half of the 4th millennium – before their contact with southern Mesopotamian colonists.

Arslantepe had control over Sokulu Tarla, Cano Tepe, Hasırcı III and Köse Höyük, aligning along the Tohma stream (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 107). Arslantepe is a central site in the region in terms of size, continuity of occupation and political centrality for millennia. It kept control of centralization and trade. An extraordinary and huge monumental public ceremonial building (Building XXIX) covering an area of 390m2, standing on a raised platform and consisting of tripartite plan, was dated to this period. The hundreds of mass-produced bowls for food distribution, as well as clay sealings, that were uncovered in the building suggest that the main activity carried out here was redistribution – in a ritualised or ceremonial manner – corvée labour and administrative control over the accumulated goods (Frangipane 2001: 3; 2001a: 329; 2002: 124). The site reveals a high degree of craft specialisation and technological developments in metallurgy and pottery production. Other craft specialisations seen at the site includee the manufacture of obsidian tools. Several dozen obsidian arrowheads, together with a large amount of ochre, were uncovered in a complex of three long adjacent rooms behind the ceremonial building (Frangipane 2001a: 329; 2002: 125; 2003a: 156). Evidence for long distance trade and exchange has also been uncovered for this period. The intensity of metalworking in the settlements clearly indicates that these activities were carried out for trade and export, over and beyond local individual needs (Hauptmann 1976a: 56-57; Yakar 1985: 385). The presence of socio-economic differentiation has been demonstrated at the site. A huge monumental structure of sun-dried mudbrick, its walls reaching 1.2m thick, containing no objects of cultic and administrative material, might well represent the residence of a high-status family (Frangipane 1993b: 135, 139; 2002: 124, 192-94).

The Malatya plain is one of the most fertile in eastern Anatolia. It is surrounded by the Anti-Taurus system to the west, east and south. The Tohma Çay crosses this alluvial plain on a west-east axis towards the Euphrates, carving out deep valleys, which in turn divide the plain into a number of smaller plains (Yakar 1985: 254; Yakar and Salzman 1979: 34). The Malatya plain lies at the intersection of major natural roads connecting central Anatolia and Cilicia with eastern Anatolia and northern Syro-Mesopotamia (Yakar and Salzman 1979: 36; Burney 1958: 157). The suitable ecological circumstances of the plain caused a high-level agricultural production process. In the Late Chalcolithic period, the region is a self-sufficient region with surplus production (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 103). A minimum of 1,790 and a maximum of 3,580 people had been living in the Malatya region in the IVth millennium BC (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 100) (Fig 1). A two-tiered settlement hierarchy is seen in the plain at this period, consisting of large-sized settlements which are larger than 1.5 hectares and small-sized settlements which are smaller than 1.5 hectares (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 103). The major indicator effecting the settlement distribution is the Euphrates river and its tributaries in the plain. On the northern side of the area, an independent system occurs with indirect interactions between Horomhan, İsaköy and Karababa Harabesi (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 107). The regional centre of the plain is Arslantepe with 3 hectares, and it, with its uninterrupted sequence from the V millennium BC to the Byzantine period, is the key site in the region (Frangipane 1996: 64). Other sites which cosisted of villages and hamlets are concentrated around Arslantepe in a dispersed settlement pattern (ibid). Furuncu (2 ha), Karababa Harabesi (1.5 ha), Sarılık Tepe, Palabıyıklar Mah and Cantepe are the other sites dated to early Chalcolithic period in the area (Di Nocera 2004: 328-29; Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 104). Furuncu could be a secondary site as a centre for the region.

Arslantepe appears to be the only site occupied at the end of the 4th millennium in the Malatya province. Again, it dominates the Malatya plain at the end of the 4th millennium BC. No traces of material dated to the late Uruk period, corresponding to Arslantepe VIA, have been found (Di Nocera 2004: 328; 2005: 65). It was the only pole of attraction in the plain at the end of the 4th millennium BC., where the population was concentrated and from where the people moved to practise livestock rearing and transhumance, which must have been one of the major economic and productive resources in the region (Di Nocera 2005: 66). Arslantepe VIA was a well organised regional center controlling the surrounding population. It was an imposing architectural templepalace complex in which the religious ideology expressed through large buildings for worship was represented by a

19

SOMA 2009 complex administrative organization affected somewhat by the Mesopotamian system by direct or indirect relations with Uruk groups to control production (Di Nocera 2005: 64). However, it was based on the growth of local organisational structures by the local elites in the Late Chalcolithic (Frangipane 1996: 61-62; 1997: 45; 1998: 197). This coexistence of local Late Chalcolithic artifactual assemblage and products of southern Mesopotamian origin at the site was also evidenced in the architecture, glyptics and ceramic production (Frangipane 1998: 197; 2001a: 332-33; 2002: 128). The huge public area, covering at least 2600m2, comprised a variety of buildings, including two temples and a complex of store-rooms with different public functions, both religious and administrative (Frangipane 1996: 62). The socio-economic organisation that consisted of an actual economic centralisation, redistribution, and widespread administrative control by these central institutions in controlling their own people, territories and labour, as well as the accumulation of both agricultural surplus and raw materials, were based on the Mesopotamian model, over the local socio-economic system, before the Uruk expansion (Frangipane 1996: 62; 1998: 197; 2001: 332-33, 337; 2002: 127; 2003a: 154). As far as craft products at the site were concerned, it is seen that metalworkings were manufactured locally, and following local traditions, whereas pottery production was strongly influenced by Uruk culture (Frangipane 1998: 198; 2002: 126, 129; Burney 1993: 314). In ceramic production, a large proportion of Uruk wares represents local imitations, with some local taste and traditional manufacturing techniques. The result was that some pottery types were completely in the Uruk style, while others were reproductions of shapes in accordance with, and adapting to, local tastes (Algaze 1993: 67; 1999: 542; Frangipane 1997: 56; 1998: 197; 2002: 128).

Malatya region in the IVth millennium BC (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 100). Norşuntepe, covering a large area some 900 x 700m2, is the central settlement on the Altınova plain of Elazığ. In a deep sondage, in the eighth phase (levels 34-33) of the site, were encountered the remnants of very substantial walls with niches that suggested monumental structures – possibly for administrative use (Harmankaya et al. 1998: Norşuntepe). Levels 36-35 at Norşuntepe revealed many finds related to metallurgical activity, such as large amounts of copper ores, raw copper and slags, as well as crucibles, moulds, smelting pits and furnaces and ladles for pouring molten metal inside houses, courtyards and streets, suggesting intense metallurgical activity performed by local smiths on site (Hauptmann 1982: 60-61; 1997: 1354; Yakar 1984: 66; 2002: 18). Hauptmann asserts that this activity was undoubtedly centrally managed (Hauptmann 1979: 57). At Norşuntepe levels 36-35, flint and obsidian tools were witnessed in the workshops where an astonishing number of arrowheads made of obsidian and knives from obsidian and flint were under production (Hauptmann 1976: 55). Evidence of longdistance trade and exchange has also been revealed for this period. The intensity of metalworking in the settlements clearly indicates that these activities were carried out for trade and export beyond local needs (Hauptmann 1976: 56-57; Yakar 1985: 385). The stamp seals were found in levels 36-35 at Norşuntepe, the levels where metallurgical activities were the most concentrated. The metalsmiths of the Altınova plain could have been supplied with their needs for copper from several different sources, even from far-distant sources, as well as from the Keban and Ergani copper mines that were very near to these sites (Yakar 1984: 67; 1985: 385; 2002: 18; Frangipane 2002a: 196). At level 18 a large rectangular building was discovered with one-room and one of its walls decorated with niches and a painting of a stylized representation of a deer, suggesting a high status individual or family (Hauptman 1976: 54; 1997: 1354; Lupton 1996: 36; Frangipane 1993b: 135; Yakar 1997: 367).

Fourteen sites were uncovered on the Altınova plain in the Elazığ region. The Altınova plain was a well defined expanse of good quality agricultural land with numerous water sources. Tepecik was the largest site on the plain with 2.1 hectares, and Norşuntepe, Tülintepe, Körtepe 05578-9 and Korucutepe ranged between 1.3 – 1.8 hectares (Lupton 1996: 20). Tepecik, Norşuntepe and Tülintepe were located in the central and western part of the plain, whereas Körtepe 05578-9 and Korucutepe were situated in the east. The other seven sites were all small settlements of one hectare or less (Lupton 1996: 20). The majority of the sites constitute one main cluster centred on Tepecik, Norşuntepe and Tülintepe, but a smaller separate grouping focused on Körtepe 05578-9 and Korucutepe on the eastern part of the plain (Lupton 1996: 20). The settlement pattern in the region was characterised by two semi-independent settlement hierarchies consisting of small centres and intermittent lower-order sites, and the area was marked by a high degree of autonomous site behaviour during the Chalcolithic period (Lupton 1996: 20-22). Thus the settlement system was identified by a high degree of economic and political autonomy, suggesting a poorly integrated regional system. A minimum of 1,660 and a maximum of 3,320 people had been living in the

Other sites on the plain also revealed traces of urbanisation process, such as trade, specialization, central management and social stratification, despite their small sizes. Korucutepe has given us burial gifts of copper, silver and gold, from two tombs at a cemetery near the settlement; large copper ingots were also found within the settlement itself, confirming a high development of craftsmanship in metalworking for the local elite (Van Loon 1978: 6163; 1981: 3; Yakar 2002: 16-17). In the small hamlet of Fatmalı- Kalecik, we have evidence of silver, lead and copper production to a lesser extent, litharge and leadsilver and copper slags (Hess, Hauptmann, et al. 1998: 57-59, 65). At Tepecik and Tülintepe were found slags, smelting pits and furnaces indicating the melting of ores locally (Yakar 1984: 67; 1985: 385; 2002: 18; Yener 2000: 41). At Tülintepe, the low iron content in the slag fragments indicates the smelting of oxidised copper ores (Yakar 2002: 18). At Tepecik, a slag fragment with low

20

Alev Erarslan: Land Use and Settlement Organisation in the Malatya-Elazığ Region between the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC iron content also points to the use of oxidised copper ores (Yakar 2002: 18).

demonstrated by the startling stratigraphic sequence at Arslantepe. A ‘royal tomb’ belonging to this period was discovered at the site and it exemplifies the existence of Transcaucasian people. It contained both Transcaucasian pottery such as black- burnished, hand-made, straightcollared jars and typical Syro-Mesopotamian pottery, such as light-coloured, wheel-thrown and reserved-slip ware (Marro 2005: 28). At Arslantepe VI-B2, dated to the Early Bronze IB period, after the construction of the royal tomb, a small village was established on an area of huts left behind after the Transcaucasian communities abandoned the settlement, which reflects the traditional settlement model of the Chalcolithic period (Frangipane 1996: 66; 2000: 449). The settlement was arranged functionally with a housing area, storage structures and specialised production areas (Frangipane 1992: 212-213; 1996: 66). The domiciles in the settlement were built on narrow and perpendicular streets and reflect the local tradition one- or two-room rectangular in plan, with sundried brick walls on stone foundations. In the upper region of the village a fortification wall 6m wide, on a stone foundation and made of sundried brick, is a sort of acropolis or fortified citadel (Frangipane 2001: 8; Frangipane, Di Nocera, et al. 2001: 136). This wall points to a new political strength and a different relationship between the elites and the lower classes (Frangipane, Di Nocera, et al. 2001: 136).

Settlement Hierarchy in the Early Bronze Age With the first half of the 3rd millennium (EB I-II), some radical structural changes took place both in settlement pattern and the political and socio-economic systems of the region. In this period, the Uruk trade network collapsed. This collapse is attributed to the nomadic groups of Transcaucasian origin that spread over the expansive area of eastern Anatolia, north-eastern Iran, Syria, Palestine and the south of Israel at the end of the 4th millennium BC and beginning of the 3rd millennium. Around 3000 BC, waves of human groups, bringing with them cultural components typical of Transcaucasia, such as Red-Black Burnished Ware, began to settle in the Malatya-Elazığ region. But the establishment of a new cultural component in the region did not transform or replace the local cultural stratum and Transcaucausian and Syro-Mesopotamian settlements coexisted at the sites (Marro 2005: 27). As a consequence, the number of sites in the region increased, and 54% of these are discovered on hills (Di Nocera 2005: 66; 2006; Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 99). The new arrivals in the Malatya-Elazığ region settled both at existing sites and newly constructed ones (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 99). The increase in the number of sites corresponds to the greater mobility of the groups within the territory. In EBI it is estimated that there were a minimum of 2,500 people living in the Malatya-Elazığ region (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 100). Arslantepe was again the major site in EBI in the Malatya region. With the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, seasonal and short-lived sites appear to develop, testifying a certain degree of mobility of the population (Di Nocera 2004: 328). Throughout the 3rd millennium BC the region is characterized by a dispersed settlement pattern in which the largest site is smaller than 3 ha. The other sites show equal distribution in hierarchy. Two sites occupy 2 hectares, two just a little larger than 1 hectare, and two with half a hectare or smaller (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 104) (Fig 2). In the first phase of EB the majority of the population had been living in large-sized settlements in both regions. As far as settlement interaction was concerned in EBI, Karababa Harabesi in the north is a separate system with two smaller sites. Arslantepe must have been in contact with Silbistan Toygar, and Pirot is located far away from the others, probably indirectly related to Silbistan (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 107).

In Early Bronze II (2750-2500 BC) there is a marked increase in the number of sites in the Malatya-Elazığ region. 46 new sites have emerged in the region, indicating a population of around 4,500. This shows an increase in the population related to the migration (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 99-100; Conti and Persiani 1993: 399). In Early Bronze II the intensive relations with the south were interrupted forever, and a process in which the previously homogeneous cultural regions split into independent small areas settled by communities with a reduced political structure, probably in connection with the establishment of pastoral-oriented economy, emerged in the MalatyaElazığ region (Frangipane 2001: 5). The region revealed a culture that combined a local elaboration of east Anatolian/ Transcaucasian cultural elements (Frangipane 1992: 214; 1996: 67; 2003: 49; Frangipane, Di Nocera, et al. 2001: 136). An indication of the different political organisations in the two regions during this period is that there are no administrative public buildings or administrative apparatus. These socio-political and economic differences may have come about because of the intense interaction between the Transcausian world and Anatolia (Frangipane 2001: 8). A crisis in this system results in an occupation of the plain by small, mostly single- phase, highland settlements in EBI-II (Di Nocera 2006). This suggests a rather mobile model of occupation and a poor regional integration (Di Nocera 2006). There are numerous sites of Early Bronze II in the Malatya plain which have single and specific chronological phases, as testified by excavations at Arslantepe VIC and Gelinciktepe, and this might explain the sequence of short and seasonal occupations based on a transhumant-style economy (Di Nocera 2004: 328). Karababa Harabesi, with four sites on its periphery, was

In Arslantepe VI-BI (dated to EBIA), the area of the ruins of the temple-palace complex was occupied by a village with mud-brick houses and wooden huts, and numerous animal pens were attached to these simple dwellings (Frangipane 2001: 4; Di Nocera 2005: 66). It reveals the presence of Transcaucasian pastoralists in the Malatya plain. The foreign nature of the new settlers is also evidenced from their handmade red-black pottery (Frangipane 2001: 4; Di Nocera 2005: 66). The coexistence of two cultural components in the region is 21

SOMA 2009 an evolved centre. Arslantepe was a centre in relation to both the river-passages and the southern systems (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 108). İmikuşağı is the largest site on the eastern shores of the Euphrates. Within this period the settlements appear to be very small. The inhabited area of Arslantepe VIC, dated to Early Bronze II, was reduced and the settled area was limited to the top of the mound only (Frangipane 2001: 5). However there were a number of large well-planned mudbrick houses with several spacious rooms with horse-shoe hearths in some (Frangipane 1992: 214; 1996: 67). Gelinciktepe, located at the base of hilly rocks in front of the mound, only a short distance from Arslantepe, appears as a temporary, probably seasonal station with a few abodes (Frangipane 1996: 67; 2001: 5).

around a wide courtyard. Outside of these houses are wall fragments on stone foundations that are believed to be part of a fortification wall (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2002: Pulur-Sakyol). The fortifications suggest a new lifestyle and a new form of organization, and that defence and competition was a crucial structuring factor in the regional organization of settlements. In addition, this period confirms the high development of craftsmanship in metalworking at Arslantepe, Norşuntepe and Tepecik. In the latter half of the 3rd millennium (EBIII), the population congregated around particular sites and singlephase sites disappeared in the Malatya plain. A number of centres emerged that polarized the interest of the population and led to the abandonment of the smaller hill sites (Di Nocera 2005: 66, 68; 2006). It is thought that this phenomenon was the result of a reorganization of the territory through the emergence of entities with a powerful local authority over the sites (Di Nocera 2005: 68; 2006). From the mid-3rd millennium BC, a new form of power emerged, based on small local ‘lords’, when conflict and competition throughout the territory must have been dominant features (Di Nocera 2005: 68; 2006). Many sites were occupied for the first time at the beginning of the Early Bronze III; various central sites are settled in the Malatya plain. Along the Euphrates we have İmamolu, Köşkerbaba, Pirot, Şemsiyetepe, İmikuşağı, İkiz Höyük, Süleymantepe and Cantepe, and there are the sites at Fırıncı Höyük, Bire Tepe, Galip Baba Tepe, İçmesu Tepe in the southern hinterland, in addition to Arslantepe (Di Nocera 2005: 68; 2006). The mobile, herding component of the society does not disappear, but it is integrated with the sedentary group. Arslantepe was the main centre of the plain, but it does not contain any evidence of a strong or complex hierarchical organization. The settlement distribution undergoes changes at the end of the 3rd millennium BC.

These nomadic pastoralists are also recognizable in the Elazığ region. The arrival of groups of a Transcaucasian tradition radically changed the character of the settlements. Wattle-and-daub huts were found at Norşuntepe, Korucutepe, Tepecik, Taşkun Mevkii, Değirmentepe and Han İbrahim Şah. The most important development for EBII is the change in Norşuntepe’s status and size. Norşuntepe, 3.2 ha in size, represents the largest site on the plain during the EBI and II periods. Tepecik is the second major site with 2.7 hectares. Korucutepe and Könk are the other large sites in the area with their more than 2 hectares. Değirmentepe, a new large site, is added to this system. Thus they constitute a micro system of their own. The settlement sizes suggest a general distribution between 2 and 1 hectares, which can be called middle-sized sites for the region (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 104; Lupton 1996: 82). The regional settlement pattern was characterized by a two-tiered settlement system. This period in the area was identified by a number of semi-autonomous, competing, sub-regional settlement systems (Lupton 1996: 84). Norşuntepe, Tepecik and Tülintepe were surrounded by fortification walls in this period. Norşuntepe level 30 (Early Bronze IB) is enclosed by a fortification wall 3–4 m thick, with a saw-toothed outer façade of sundried brick on a foundation of stone (Hauptmann 1979: 58). Inside this enclosure wall are rectangular dwellings of one- or two-rooms, made of mudbrick, and standing independent of one another, with disc hearths, and arranged along paved alleys or streets (Hauptmann 1979: 58; Yakar 1985: 274). The Early Bronze I-II settlement of Tepecik was surrounded by a defence wall with towers of mudbrick on stone foundations, and inside was a settlement of oneor two-room mudbrick houses rectangular in plan with disc hearths inside (Esin 1997: 1761). The settlement of Early Bronze II in Tülintepe exhibits pieces of a partially bevelled wall on a foundation of a diameter of 130m, 2m thick, pointing to a considerably large-scale settlement for its period (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2002: Tülintepe). Pulur-Sakyol in the Elazığ region displays a settlement pattern that will later be the characteristic form of Anatolian Early Bronze Age architecture. Named the ‘Anatolian Settlement Scheme’, this plan is made up of adjacent houses, each with two rectangular rooms with horse-shoe hearths, standing on a stone foundation and with mudbrick walls, arranged radially

In the Early Bronze III, new urban settlements arose in the Malatya-Elazığ region. They expanded their area more widely than the previous populations and show a well developed system of town planning. Arslatepe was characterized by a gradual expansion of the site and more structured town planning. The number of settlements increased and the population intensified in small towns, showing a considerable growth in size and town planning (Frangipane 1996: 66; 2001: 6). According to identified, but as yet not investigated mounds dating to this period in the Malatya Plain, a hierarchically-structured settlement pattern consisted of centres and satellite settlements appeared in the region, as demonstrated by the existence of different sizes of sites – large and small (Frangipane 1996: 67). The conical shape of the mounds suggests that all the EBAIII settlements had marked boundaries, surrounded by fortification walls (Frangipane 1996: 67). Each town in the region was largely autonomous, as evidenced by the lack of any dominant political centres, the absence of walls surrounding the settlements or evidence of external conflicts. These factors are interpreted as an indication that there were local conflicts between towns in the region,

22

Alev Erarslan: Land Use and Settlement Organisation in the Malatya-Elazığ Region between the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC and this must have prevented a central dominance of any one settlement over another (Frangipane 1996: 67; Conti and Persiani 1993: 400-401). The settlements of the Malatya-Elazığ region show a series of new political entities in EBIII based on urbanization, but without any form of centralization of economic activities wholly Anatolian in nature (Frangipane 2001: 6). The population was concentrated in small urban centres. Arslantepe VIDI grew into a town with a functionally planned urban layout, comprising areas of houses, workshops and worship, built on terraced areas (Frangipane 1990: 209; Conti and Persiani 1993). It expanded its area down the slope of the mound and revealed an urban planning with large-scale terracing and channels to drain off rain-water (Frangipane 1993a: 215; 1996: 66). The well-planned settlement of this period consists of large buildings with spacious rooms with benches and horse-shaped hearths inside; streets passed through from north to south, the gradient of which follows the slope of the mound (Frangipane 1993a: 215; 1996: 66). Arslantepe VIDI was surrounded by a mudbrick town wall with semi-circular towers on stone foundations, indicating the existence of a certain degree of conflict in the plain (Frangipane 1996: 66; Di Nocera 2005: 67, 2006). Other sites in the Malatya region, Şemsiyetepe, İmamoğlu and Köşkerbaba, reflect prosperity, with well- constructed and plastered walled houses, large hearths and fine local painted pottery (Yakar 1998: 101).

running perpendicular to each other, east-west and northsouth (Esin 1974: 112; 1997: 1761). The walls of Tepecik are thought to have been located at a distance from the hillside slope (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2002; Conti and Persiani 1993: 403). Tülintepe’s 130-meter defence wall, standing on foundations 2m thick, is evidence of a considerably large-scale settlement (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2002).

In the Elazığ region the most important centre is Norşuntepe. New and smaller sites concentrated in its periphery. In Norşuntepe level VIII, the settlement started to attain the character of a town. It has a main avenue 2m wide that separates the settlement into north and south, and also has side streets which are surrounded by several quarters, giving the appearance of a structurally wellplanned township. The domiciles are one- and two-roomed mudbrick structures with horse-shoe shaped hearths inside and not far from the citadel area of the mound (Hauptmann 1997: 1354). Later the citadel area was dominated by a palace-like complex, belonging to a local authority that had control over the agricultural surplus and the mineral beds of the whole Altınova Region. The complex comprised of large areas of storerooms filled with pithoi, kitchens and ateliers spaces (Hauptmann 1976: 17; 1999: 71). The Norşuntepe acropolis storerooms could indicate the intention of the local elite to increase the resources destinated for external trade (Conti and Persiani 1993: 409). Korucutepe is the second centre in the area and show an involvement with new settlements on the periphery (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 109). At Korucutepe, the highlights of EBIII included an imposing, thick- walled public building designed as the hall. This structure contained a bench, hearth and three horse-shoe shaped andirons (Yakar 1996: 510; 1998: 100). A level of town planning is seen at the sites of the region. At Tepecik, a planned town settlement consists of neighbourhoods of one- and two-rooms, mudbrick dwellings, and with streets

Thus the overall picture shows a growth of complexity in the socio-economic and political system at a regional level: all the features mark the emergence of an urban society in the region. The Malatya-Elazığ region was formed by settlements with economic and political autonomy during the Late Chalcolithic period (Baştürk and Konakçı 2005: 109). Finds suggest a large number of local societies organized into complex, hierarchically structured regional systems and achieving a high degree of economic, political and social complexity from the Late Chalcolithic to the end of the Early Bronze Age (from the first half of the 4th millennium onwards). They exhibit some key characteristics peculiar to urban societies, including: two-level site-size hierarchies; a complex economy demonstrating a high degree of technological development and specialisation; monumental structures for administrative purposes; claysealing systems; economic centralisation and redistribution systems; class stratification (reflecting in the architecture); funerary practices; mass-produced ceramics (for food distribution for unpaid workers); the control of labour; and long-distance exchange. The arrival of the Transcaucasian groups caused a break in contacts with the southern focus of urbanization. Instead, a socioeconomic scheme inherited from the eastern Anatolia village communities, entirely overwhelmed the pre-existing traces of Late Chalcolithic origins (Conti and Persiani 1993: 409).

Traces of high levels of craft specialisation in the production of ceramics and metal artefacts are seen at the sites of this period. The handmade, light-brown, mica-alloyed clay bowls – known as Altınova Painted Pottery – produced at a large number of settlements, such as Norşuntepe, Tepecik, Tülintepe, Korucutepe, Han İbrahim Şah, Aşvan Kale, Arslantepe, Pirot, İmamoğlu, Şemsiyetepe and Yeniköy, have human and animal motifs decorated with paint around the rims of the bowls, as well as geometrical patterns (Bilgi 2003: 65; Baysan 1997: 1724). These well-fired bowls are unique to the region and have been produced by local master artisans (Bilgi 2003: 65; Baysan 1997: 1724). Findings related to metal production are encountered at Arslantepe, Norşuntepe, Tepecik and Tülintepe. The most widespread metal artefacts of the period in terms of form and size are the standard, thick-metal spirals found in mass quantity at Norşuntepe, Arslantepe and Tepecik (Frangipane 2003: 62).

23

SOMA 2009 Acknowledgements

vey Project 2003-2005 in the Malatya Plain, 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East – 3-7 April 2006, Madrid, in publish. Erarslan, A. (2006) Local Steps Toward Urbanism in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia (3900-2600 BC), Anatolica, XXXII, 55-70. Erarslan, A. (2006a) Progress Towards First Cities in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia (2600-1900 BC): The Local Dynamics of Urbanistic Development, TÜBAAR, 9, 81-96. Esin, U. (1974) Tepecik Kazıları, 1971, Keban Project 1971 Activities, Ankara, METU, 109- 121. Esin, U. (1997) Tepecik, Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi, 3: 1760-1762. Frangipane, M. (1990) Excavations at Arslantepe Malatya the 1989 Campaiqn, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, XII/I: 209-223 Frangipane, M. (1992) The Results of the 1991 Campaign at Arslantepe-Malatya, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, XIV/I: 213-229. Frangipane, M. (1993) Arslantepe-Melid-Malatya, IN: M. Frangipane ed., Arslantepe, Hieropolis, Kyme, Türkiyedeki Italyan Kazıları, Marsilio, Venezia, Roma, 31103. Frangipane, M. (1993a) Excavations at ArslantepeMalatya, 1992, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, XV/I: 211220. Frangipane, M. (1993b) Local Components in the Development of Centralized Societies in Syro-Anatolian Regions, IN: M. Frangipane., H. Hauptman., M. Liverani., P. Mattiae., and M. Mellink. eds., Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicate, Roma, 133-162. Frangipane, M. (1996) Models of Urbanisation in Eastern Anatolia, IN: Y. Sey ed., Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective, Habitat II, İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 60-69. Frangipane, M. (1997) A 4th-Millennium Temple/Palace Complex at Arslantepe-Malatya. North-South Relations and the Formation of Early State Societies in the Northern Regions at Greater Mesopotamia, Pale’orient, 23/I: 45-73. Frangipane, M. (1998) Changes in Upper Mesopotamian/ Anatolian Relations at the Beginning of 3rd Millennium B.C., Subartu, IV/1, 195-205. Frangipane, M. (2000) The Late Chalcolithic/EBI Sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and Cultural Remarks from a Frontier Site, IN: C. Marro., H. Hauptmann. eds., Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et del’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millenaires, Paris: Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 439-471. Frangipane, M. (2001) The Transition Between Two Opposing Forms of Power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the Beginning of the 3rd, TÜBA-AR, 4, 1-24. Frangipane, M. (2001a) Centralisation Process in Greater Mesopotamia. Uruk Expansion as the Climax of Systemic Interactions among areas of the Greater Mesopo-

I am very much indebted to Gian Maria Di Nocera for providing me with his unpublished manuscript and for his great help and kindness. Bibliography Algaze, G. (1993) The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago. Algaze, G. (1999) Trends in the Archaeological Development of the Upper Euphrates Basin of South-Eastern Anatolia during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages, IN: G. D. Olmo Lete., and J. L. Montero Fenellos. eds., Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area, Barcelona, Editorial AUSA, 535-572. Arsebük, G. (1986) Altınova’da (Elazığ) Başlangıcından İlk Tunç Çağı’nın Sonuna Kadar Kültür Silsilesi ve Sosyal Tabakalanma Sorunu, Türk Tarih Kongresi, IX, 81-93. Baysan, I. (1997) Şemsiyetepe, Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi, 3: 1724. Baştürk, M. B. and E. Konakçı. (2005) Settlement Patterns in the Malatya Elazığ Region in the IV&III. Millennium BC, Altorientalische Forschungen, XXXII/1, 97114. Bilgi, Ö. (2003) Köşkerbaba Höyük, Arkeo Atlas, 2: 65. Burney C. A. (1958) Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolitic and Early Bronze Age, Anatolian Studies, VIII, 157209. Burney, C. A. (1993) Arslantepe as a Gateway to the Highlands: A Note on Periods VIA-VID, IN: M. Frangipane., H. Hauptmann., M. Liverani., P. Matthiae. and M. Mellink. eds., Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicate, Roma, 311-317. Conti, A. M. and C. Persiani. (1993) When Worls Collide Cultural Developments in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age, IN: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matti. and M. Mellink eds., Between the River and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicate, Universita La Sapienza, Roma, 361-500. Di Nocera, G. M. (2004) 2003 Archaeological Survey in the Malatya Territory, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 22/2, 325-337. Di Nocera, G. M. (2005) Mobility and Stability: Preliminary Observations on Early Bronze Age Settlement Organisation in the Malatya Plain, IN: C. Marro, A. Özfırat eds., Mountains and Valleys: A Symposium on Highland/Lowland Interaction in the Bronze Age Settlement Systems of Eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Northwestern Iran. 9.-13. August 2004, Van, Turkey, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 63-70. Di Nocera, G. M. (2006) Settlements, Population and Landscape on the Upper Euphrates between V and II millennium B.C. Results of the Archaeological Sur24

Alev Erarslan: Land Use and Settlement Organisation in the Malatya-Elazığ Region between the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC tamian Region, IN: M. Rothman. ed., Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions and their Consequences in the Era of State Formation, Santa Fe, 307-348. Frangipane, M. (2002) Non-Uruk Development and UrukLinked Features on the Northern Borders of Greater Mesopotamia, IN: J. N. Postgate ed., Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Iraq Archaeological Reports vol.5. Warminster: Aris & Philips, 123-148. Frangipane, M. (2002a) Yakındoğu’da Devletin Doğuşu, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Frangipane, M. (2003) Doğu Anadolu. İlk Tunç Çağı II-III Dönemi, Arkeo Atlas, 2: 58-68. Frangipane, M. (2003a) Developments in Fourth Millennium Public Architecture in the Malatya Plain: From Simple Tripartite to Complex and Bipartite Pattern, IN: M. Özdoğan., H. Hauptmann. and N. Başgelen eds., From Village to Cities. Early Villages in the Near East, Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 147-170. Frangipane, M., Di, Nocera G. M., Hauptmann, A., Morbidelli, P., Palmieri, A., Sador, I L., Schultz, M., Schmidt-Schultz, T. (2001) New symbols of a new power in a “royal” tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey), Paleorient, 27/2: 105-139. Hess, K., Hauptmann, A., Wright, H., Whallon, R. (1998) Evidence of Fourth Millennium B.C. Silver Production at Fatmalı-Kalecik, East Anatolia, IN: Th. Rehren, A. Hauptmann, J. D. Muhly. Eds., Metallugica Antiqua, Bochum, 57-67. Harmankaya, S. and B. Erdoğu. (2002) Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 4a, Ilk Tunç Çağı. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları. Harmankaya, S., Tanındı, O., and M. Özbaşaran. (1998) Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 3, Kalkolitik. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları. Hauptmann, H. (1976) Die Entwicklung der Frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Norşuntepe in Ostanatolien, Archaologisches Korrespondenz Blatt, 6: 9-20. Hauptmann, H. (1976a) Norşuntepe Kazıları 1972, Keban Project 1972 Activities, METU, Ankara, 41-60 Hauptmann, H. (1979) Kalkolitik Çağ’dan İlk Tunç Çağı’nın Bitimine kadar Norşuntepe’de Yerleşmenin Gelişimi, Türk Tarih Kongresi, VIII/ I, 55-64. Hauptmann, H. (1982) Norşuntepe Kazıları 1974, Keban Project 1974-75 Activities, METU, Ankara, pp. 15-70. Hauptmann, H. (1997) Norşuntepe, Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi, 2: 1353-1355. Hauptmann, H. (1999) Norşuntepe ve Lidar Höyük), IN: H. Hauptmann ed., Kayıp Zamanların Peşinde. Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü Anadolu Kazıları, Istanbul, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 65-82. Lupton, A. (1996) Stability and Change, Socio-Political Development in North Mesopotamia and South-East Anatolia 4000-2700 B.C. Oxford: BAR International Series 627. Marro, C. (2005) Cultural Duality in Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia in Late Prehistory (c. 4200-2800 BC),

IN: C. Marro, A. Özfırat eds., Mountains and Valleys: A Symposium on Highland/Lowland Interaction in the Bronze Age Settlement Systems of Eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Northwestern Iran. 9.-13. August 2004, Van, Turkey, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 27-34. Rothman, M. S. (2005) Transcaucasians: Settlement, Migration and Trade in the Kura-Araxes Periods, IN: C. Marro, A. Özfırat eds., Mountains and Valleys: A Symposium on Highland/Lowland Interaction in the Bronze Age Settlement Systems of Eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Northwestern Iran. 9.-13. August 2004, Van, Turkey, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 53-62. Özdoğan, M. (1977) Lower Euphrates Basin, 1977 Survey, İstanbul: Middle East Technical University Lower Euphrates Project Publications 1/2. Sagona, A. (1994) The Aşvan Sites 3, The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Serdaroğlu Ü. (1975) Surveys in the Lower Euphrates Basin, O.D.T.Ü. Aşağı Fırat Projesi Yayınları Seri I, No. 1, 1977, Ankara. Van Loon, M. (1978) Korucutepe 2, Amsterdam. Van Loon, M. (1981) Korucutepe, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi, 11: 3-8. Whallon, Jr. R. (1979) An Archaeological Survey of the Keban Reservoir Area of East-Central Turkey (Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan 11), Michigan. Whallon, R. and S. Kantman. (1969) Early Bronze Age Development in the Keban Reservoir, East Central Turkey, Current Anthropology, 10, 128-183. Yakar, J. (1985) The Later Prehistory of Anatolia,The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, BAR International Series 268, Oxford. Yakar, J. (1996) The Socio-Economic Significance of Regional Settlement Pattern in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. An Archaeological Assessment, IN: Y. Sey ed., Housing in Anatolia through the Ages, Papers, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 505-511. Yakar, J. (1997) Anatolian Trade with Syro-Mesopotamia Prior to the Establishment at the Assyrian Merchant Colonies, IN: H. Waetzoldt, H. Hauptmann eds., XXXIVe Rencontre Assyriologique International, Berlin, 364-372. Yakar, J. (1998) Environmental Factors Affecting Urbanization in Bronze Age Anatolia, IN: J. G. Westenholz ed., Capital Cities. Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions, Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Publications No. 2, 99-109. Yakar, J. (2002) East Anatolian Metallurgy in the Fourth and Third Millennia B.C.: Some Remarks, IN: U. Yalçın eds., Anatolian Metals II, Bochum, 15-25. Yakar, J. and G. A. Salzman. (1977) Archaeological Survey in the Malatya and Sivas Provinces, 1977, Tel Aviv, 6: 34-53. Yener, A. (2000) The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complexity Metal Industries in Anatolia, Leiden, Brill. 25

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1: Sites dated to Chalcolithic Period (Di Nocera 2004: Fig 5)

Fig 2: Sites dated to Early Bronze Age (Di Nocera 2004: Fig 6)

26

Rings from the Han Necropolis A. Oğuz Alp Department of History of Art, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey The district of Han, 104 km. southeast of Eskisehir, is located on a plateau of which the average altitude is 1500 meters, on an extension of the Küçük Türkmen Mountains. The settlement, which has the form of a small Anatolian village, lies away from the main roads today.  It takes its name from a no longer existing caravanserai which was part of a complex constructed by Husrev Pasha, vizier of Murad IV.

2009:190). This necropolis at Han, in which more than one hundred individual graves and tomb-chambers cut into the tuff were excavated in an area of 2000m², is the biggest cemetery of the Roman period now known in central Anatolia (Fig. 1). The graves on the north slope are oriented north-south, except for a few which are oriented east-west. The sides of the pits of nearly all the single graves were smoothed down to receive the cover stones. These flat limestone blocks are 10-15cm. thick were found in situ over some graves. The steles from these graves are scattered near the cemetery and over different areas of the site. The majority of the steles, which are made of local marble, are ‘doorstones’, a type of grave-monument widely used in Phrygia during the second and third centuries A.D. Apart from these, there are also steles with reliefs on their wide front side.

The excavations carried out since 2004 by the author of this article prove the existence of an ancient settlement inherited by the people now settled here, and added to the inscriptions kept in the centre of the village, in which a short excavation was first carried out by the Eskişehir Archaeological Museum in 1992 (Pehlivaner 1994:228). The excavations till now have demonstrated that the rocky slope nearly 600 meters long bordering the ancient settlement was first used as a cemetery in Roman times and those subterranean galleries were later made here for defence and grain storage in the late Roman period.

  The entrances of the rock-cut tomb chambers have the form of a narrow dromos with steps leading downwards. The dromoi of all the rock-cut tomb chambers are on the same north-south axis as all the single graves. The flat limestone slabs found in situ over the dromoi of some rockcut tomb chambers indicate that the dromoi were originally covered. The basic difference seen at the tomb chambers lies in the number of burials and the form of the entrance. The majority of the tomb chambers consist of rooms with three burials, and chambers with five or more graves are rare. Most of the graves consist of arcosolium and cline; some burials are cut into the ground like sarcophagi.

The size of the cemetery partially brought to light, in addition to the numerous grave steles scattered across the landscape, architectural blocks, and inscriptions, indicate that the ancient settlement here had reached a size which should not be underestimated, and that it became a strategic military centre in the Byzantine era. The only source for the name of the ancient settlement here is a lost inscription of the Roman period which was recorded by W. M. Ramsay at the caravanserai which was then only partially ruined (Ramsay 1887: 501). Ramsay first suggested that ‘Καχχαβοkomh-Kakkabokome’ which appears on this inscription should be searched for in the village of Başara, situated 5km. southeast of the settlement, on the base of the name furnished by this inscription; but later he changed his view in favour of Han, which seems more probable (Ramsay 1890: 257). Ramsay was the first to discuss this settlement, which is listed as ‘κώμηι Κακκαβα/Καχχαβας’ in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus in 431, and no further information about its location appeared on the inscription in the caravanserai. Unfortunately, no new epigraphical data about the name of the settlement has been found in the current excavations. As a result, the localization of ‘Καχχαβοkomh’ as Han is still a valid point of view more than a hundred years after Ramsay’s discussion.

That the single burials date to the Roman Empire and the rock-cut tomb chambers to the Late Roman period, can be established by the finds from the graves and by the fact that the rock-cut tomb chambers are similar to those excavated in previous years in the centre of Seyitgazi (ancient Nacoleia) and in the cemetery of the village of Şükranlı near Yazılıkaya (Tokgöz 1976a, 1976b, 1977). The finds from the graves indicate that this necropol was used from the middle of the first century A.D. until the sixth century A.D., during five consecutive centuries. Despite the size of the necropol and the great number of burials, most of the graves were partially demolished or robbed during later periods, except for a few in which skeletons and funerary gifts were found in situ. In some graves various ornamental objects such as intact or nearly intact ceramic and glass vessels, lamps, ear-rings, necklaces and finger-rings were found. 

The Necropol is

The ring graves

The excavations carried out on the north and east slopes of the rocky hill in the southwest portion of the settlement show that this area was used as a cemetery from the early Roman period to late Roman times (Alp and Çağlar

It was not possible to establish a reliable relationship between the rings and the sex of their proprietors because of re-use of the graves at various times and the small quantity

27

SOMA 2009 of bones recovered.  Information obtained from the other finds made in the graves and from anthropological study of the skeletons is presented below. No small finds were obtained except for a silver ring (cat.no.1) in the grave Han GB-D, 2008-M6 excavated in 2008 on the eastern slope of the cemetery. It was not possible to determine the age and sex of the person buried because too few bones could be collected.

structure of Roman-period rural settlements in Phrygia, which are not well-known today. The first of our examples is a silver ring with a cornelian stone (cat.no.1). Projections like shoulders at both sides of the hoop broaden and join the bezel (Fig. 4). This ring with its trapezoidal hoop is similar to others from the third century A.D. It has been observed that the angle of the hoop becomes more pronounced in the ring forms of the third and fourth centuries A.D. While the sections of the earlier rings are ‘D’ or oval, they become trapezoidal in the course of time. This clear change of form may be observed in many rings from this period. The part with an angle in the middle of the hoop becomes more and more a portion of the broad section on the top of the ring, whether or not the ring has a stone. The shoulder projections become disproportionately high and constitute a separate part of the ring in some examples (Marshall 1968: Typ E XXIX, 1180, 1405-6). The ring found in Han is similar to this form seen since the third century A.D., for in our ring too the shoulder broadens and joins the bezel (Henig 1978: Type VIII, Johns 1999: 48, Marshall 1968: no. 524).

In the grave Han 2007, M-10 on the northern slope of the cemetery, were unearthed ceramic vases of various forms, a glass bottle, a silver ring and bracelet, a bronze earring and glass beads from necklaces, in addition to an engraved iron ring (cat.no.2). Although it was not possible to determine the age and sex of the skeleton, it is likely that the bones belonged to a female. The only small find from the grave Han 2006, M-9 on the northern slope of the cemetery is a bronze ring which is presented in this paper (cat.no.3). The bones from the grave belonged to three adults, probably two male and one female. The grave Han GB-D, 2008-M4, located on the eastern slope of the cemetery, is the richest among the graves excavated so far in terms of the variety and the number of the finds. In this grave, ceramic vessels of different forms, two female figurines, a terracotta lamp, two bone hairpins, three glass ring-stones, a bronze ring, three necklaces of coloured glass beads, a cylindrical cosmetic or ink box and two agate ring-stones were found, in addition to the agate ring-stone which is presented here (cat.no.4). Preliminary anthropological examination of the bones indicates that three adults, one male about 20, another male about 40-45, and one female about 30-35 years old were buried in this grave, which was used at various times.

A scene with a quadriga is incised on the cornelian stone of our second ring (Figs. 2-3). Although its workmanship does not attribute importance to the details of the depiction, it is easy to see the figures and composition which constitute the scene. While the chariot is depicted frontally, the horses pulling it are depicted as two groups in profile to the left and right. Sol (Helios) on the quadriga is depicted with radiate crown, harness in one hand and globe in the other. Sol, identified with the Greek Helios, became a popular mythological figure in terms of iconography since the early Roman period and especially SOL INVICTUS was used on coins by Roman emperors as official imperial propaganda. The version with Sol on a quadriga occurs mostly on gemstones and on coins, especially since the third century A.D., among the different depictions of Sol (Georgoula 1999: 214 no.73; I. Bingöl - O. Bingöl 2003). Sol on a quadriga shown in front view and in profile usually has whip or harness in one hand, globe in the other, radiate crown and cloak floating behind. A frontal view like that on the stone from Han, among the coins dating to this period in particular, may be found on coins of the third-century emperors Elagabalus (218-222 A.D.), Trebonianus Gallius (251-253 A.D.) and Probus (276-282 A.D.) (SNG Levante 1986: no.1594; Howgego 2005: no.692; Probus: Mattingly and Sydenham 1933: no.776). The scene was taken into the repertoire of the ring-stones and became popular at the same time as the coins mentioned above (Scherf, Gerck et al. 1970: no. 157, Walters 1926: nos. 1661, 1663, Richter 1956: no. 281). On the basis of the diminishing quality of the workmanship of the ring-stones, as in most examples since the second century A.D., and also of the features of the depiction mentioned above, it may be concluded that this ring – and therefore the majority of the finds from this grave – dates to the middle of the third century A.D. or soon afterwards (Henig 1988: nos. 34-35.)

The rings Rings as ornamental belongings are always important in terms of their attractiveness during the period they were produced, bearing specific meanings and being special to their owners, just as they are today. Above all, the ringstones of value, with incised figures and inscriptions, constitute a substantial group of finds – although they are mostly ignored – related to the important production centres of their time and to the social, economic and cultural structure of the place where they were discovered. The three rings and the ring-stone which are presented here were found in four different graves excavated between 2006 and 2008 in the Han cemetery. While two of the differently-shaped rings have gemstones, the third bears a name incised on its metal bezel. The fourth is an agate with an inscription. These rings, like the other finds from the Han cemetery, deserve detailed evaluation not only in order to date the graves in which they were deposited, but also because they provide important clues about the social and economic

28

A. Oğuz Alp: Rings from the Han Necropolis This ring (cat.no.2) has suffered much deterioration because of intense oxidation. It is not possible therefore to determine its form. The fact that the hoop has a ‘D’ section and broadens upwards can be ascertained even in its present state. Rings with similar forms were produced since the first century of the Roman Empire (Greifenhagen 1975, pl. 58, Marshal 1968: pl. 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15-16). The fact that rings of this form were made for a long time offers no opportunity of suggesting a reliable date on the base of form alone. On an octagonal agate ring-stone, Bellerophon attacking the Chimaera is incised in detail (Fig. 5). Bellerophon on Pegasus holds a long spear in his right hand in the upper part of the scene. The blade of the spear in the hand of the hero, who wears a pointed rimmed hat (perhaps taken from Hermes), stabs the Chimaera depicted as a mixture of lion, goat and snake according to myth. Bellerophon was a popular subject of ancient iconography and appears on many artefacts, especially ceramics and ring-stones, in the Greek and Roman periods. The hero – generally on Pegasus or resting – was sometimes depicted spearing the Chimaera, which is the most dramatic part of the myth. This iconography of Bellerophon is often the scene preferred on ring-stones like that from Han, in addition to mosaics, ceramics and medallions from Greek and Roman times (Lochin 1988: 225 nos. 174, 18, Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, Brandt 1970: nos. 1390-1391, Scherf, Gerck et al. 1970: no. 269). This ring may be dated to the middle of the third century like the first presented here, on the base of similarities of the other small finds from the graves where this ring was found to objects recovered in the surrounding area (Türktüzün 1991:230, Figs. 10-12, 15).

engraved with unintelligible letters may be a cryptic formula which could protect the wearer from evil eye. Catalogue Cat. no. 1. Silver ring with cornelian stone. Hoop: 23x12mm. Thickness: 2 mm. Ring Stone: 12 x 11mm. (Form of the stone: A4.) Trapezoidal hoop with slightly projecting shoulders. The dark red semi-transparent stone has an oval form and is fixed by a thin silver plaque. The bottom of the stone is plain, the top is convex. On the stone is incised Sol (Helios) on a quadriga.  Ref: Form: BMCR no. 524 (3rd century A.D. or later).   Figure: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986: no. 149, Henig 1978: nos. 34, 35. Walters 1926: nos. 1661, 1663 (3rd century A.D.). Scherf, Gerck et al.1970: no. 157 (2nd century A.D.). Cat. no. 2. Iron ring with agate. Hoop: 26 mm. Thickness: 3-5 mm. Stone: 14.5x11 mm. (Form of the stone: F2.) The hoop gradually broadens towards its top. On the surface of the octagonal agate are lightly-coloured portions. On the agate is incised Bellerophon attacking the Chimaera with a spear. Ref: Walters 1926: no. 3180, 3181 (Augustan). Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986: no.123. Richter 1956: no. 281.

On the bezel of the third bronze ring (cat.no.3) is incised in three lines a Hebrew name in Greek which can be read as ‘CO-ΛOMW-V’ (Figs. 6-7). While Solomon might be the name of the proprietor as usual, it may be related to the Jewish Prophet of Solomon who has been believed to have had super-natural powers since early times (Meyer and Mirecki 2001: 270-272). Although it is common to see Solomon’s sign, which carries exorcist meanings on the rings and amulets, the fact that no example with an inscribed name is known among Roman Imperial Period prevents a precise judgement (Marshall 1968: p. XXVIII-XXX). This ring has the ‘D’ oval form, which is widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean since the late Hellenistic period. No ring with an inscription on the bezel of this type of ring, which generally has a stone like the example from Han, was found in the literature (Bingöl 1999: nos. 174-177; Marshall 1968: Type XVII nos.11581171). Therefore, it is not possible to suggest when this ring was made.

Cat. no. 3. Intaglio bronze ring. Hoop: 28x21 mm. Thickness: 4mm. The hoop broadens towards its top. On the ring are incised the letters CO-ΛOMW-V in three lines. Ref: Form: BMCR 1968: Type XVII: nos. 1158-1171 (2nd century A.D.). Bingöl 1999: nos. 174-175, 177 (1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D.). Cat. no. 4. Agate ring-stone: 10x75mm. Thickness: 3.5mm. On the octagonal agate are incised the letters YO-IA in two lines above a thin branch. Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Lect. Aytug Arslan who translated the text into English, to Prof. Dr. Thomas Drew-Bear for sharing his information about the inscriptions on the rings and proof reading the text, to Ass. Prof. Alptekin Oransay, who helped me to reach the resources about this subject, and to Görkem Işık.

The last example (cat.no.4) is an octagonal agate ring stone (Fig. 8). On the stone, like the previous example, are incised the Greek letters YO-IA in two lines above a thin branch. All letters of the word are vowel sounds and that makes it more logical to think that it is related to a kind of magic of which the meaning is not clear rather than the name of its proprietor. Rings equipped with a gemstone

Bibliography Alp, O. A. and Çağlar, D. (2009) ‘Eskişehir-Han İlçesi ve Başara Köyü Kazıları (2004-2007)’, XXX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı Vol. I, Ankara. 189-200 29

SOMA 2009 Meyer, M. and Mirecki, P. (2001) ‘“Greek Exorcistic Amulet” Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, Boston/Leiden. Pehlivaner, M. (1994) ‘Han ve Yazılıkaya’da Temizlik Çalışmaları, 1992’, Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, IV. 26-29 Nisan 1993. Marmaris. Ankara, 227-243. Pierides, A. (1971) Jewellery in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Cyprus. Ramsay, W. M. (1887) ‘The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia II’, Journal of Hellenistic Studies, VIII. 461-519 Ramsay, W. M.  (1890) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London. Richter, G. (1956) Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. Russell J. (1995) ‘The Archaeological Context of Magic in the Early Byzantine Periods’, in Byzantine Magic (ed. Henry Maguire), Washington, 35-50. Syllogue Nummorum Graecorum: Switzerland I LevanteCilicia (1986). Scherf, V., Gerck, P. and Zazoff, P. (1970) Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Band. III. Braunschweig, Göttingen, Kassel. Tokgöz, D. (1976a) ‘Seyitgazi Nekropol Kazısı-1974’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi. XXIII-1, 103-109. Tokgöz, D. (1976b) ‘Şükranlı Nekropol Kazısı-1974, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi. XXIII-2, 117-142. Tokgöz, D. (1977) ‘Şükranlı Nekropol Kazısı-1975’, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi. XXIV-1,167-191. Türktüzün, M. (1991) ‘Roma Devri Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazısı’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi. XXXIX, 225-249. Walters, H. B. (1926) Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum, London.

Bingöl, I. (1999) Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesindeki Antik Takıları. Ankara. Bingöl, I. and Bingöl, O. (2003) ‘Der Kameo aus Magnesia’, Anatolia 25, 27-35. Brandt, E. (1970) Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, Band. I-2, Munich/Berlin. Georgoula, G. (1999) Greek Jewellery from the Benaki Museum Collections. Athens. Henig, M. (1994) Classical Gems: Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Cameos in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge. Henig, M. (1988) ‘The Chronology of Roman Engraved Gemstone’, J.R.A. 1, 142-152. Henig, M. (1978) A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites. British Archaeological Reports 8, Oxford. Howgego, C. J. (2005) Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. Oxford. Johns, C. (1999) Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Tradition. 2nd edn, London. Letta, C. (1988) ‘Helios/Sol” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae’, Vol. 4/2, Zurich, 366-384. Lochin, A. (1988) ‘“Pegasos” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae’. Vol. 7/1, Zurich, 215-231. Marshall, F. H. (1968) Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Department of Antiquities. British Museum, 2nd edn. London. Mattingly H. and Sydenham E. (1933) The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 5 Part II. Maaskant-Kleibrink, Marianne (1986) Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam te Nijmegen. The Engraved gems: Roman and non-Roman. Nijmegen.

Fig. 1: Plan of the Han cemetery.

30

A. Oğuz Alp: Rings from the Han Necropolis

Fig. 2: Silver ring with cornelian stone. Fig. 3: Stamp of silver ring with cornelian stone.

Fig. 4: Drawing of silver ring with cornelian stone (A. Oransay).

Fig. 6: Bronze ring with inscription.

Fig. 5: Iron ring with agate stone.

Fig. 7: Drawing of bronze ring with inscription (A. Oransay - G. Işık).

Fig. 8: Agate stone with inscription 31

32

Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauria Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Department of Classical Archaeology, Institute of Social Sciences, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey In this study we will evaluate the Roman red-slip ware among the ceramic material discovered during the surveys of 2004-2008. In the surveys performed in the region until today, ceramic material dating to a wide period from the beginnings of the Hellenistic Period to the Late Roman Period has been found. The reason why we have chosen to analyse the Roman red-slip ware out of the widespread material of that period is to clarify the relations of the settlements in question with other regions within a certain period. The region, even today, has many archaeological problems.

orms and used the catalogue9 compiled by John Hayes in 1985 for analogy. Groups constituting the ceramics found in the Isauria region are Eastern Sigillata A, B and C and Cyprus RedSlip. It is not possible to make an overall statement for the whole Isauria region by examining the characteristics of the ceramic material we have defined as red-slip. Eastern Sigillata Group A The most common red-slip ceramics in the region are those from Eastern Sigillata Group (ESA) A (Graphs 1 and 2). Ceramics in this group are dated between the 1st century B.C. and 3rd centuries A.D., in accordance with their forms. Five unique forms were determined among ESA group ceramics. Four of the forms are open pots and one is a crater.

Isauria is located in the region surrounded today by the Bozkır, Hadim, Taşkent, Ermenek and Bucak counties in the south of the Anatolian Peninsula (Map 1). As the region had an unsettled geography there had been no serious agricultural activity. However; with its underground resources and cedar forests, vital for shipbuilding, Isauria had always been a significant raw material resource for the ancient states. As mentioned above, the ceramic material found in the regional analysis dates back to the beginnings of the Hellenistic period. Nevertheless, the region was mentioned for the first time in Anatolian history within the context of the struggles of Pompeius with pirates in 67 B.C.1

ESA Form 1: Ceramics in this group are flat; have rims extending downwards and slightly carved tondos. This form is the type of the open pot defined as ‘fish plate’ and used since the 4th century B.C. The form was dated to 100 B.C. by Hayes and named as form 1. Two samples from our material are similar to the material of the Cilician region in terms of clay and slip characteristics (see Catalogue nos. 1 and 3). Another sample shares the same form but differs in its thin brush paint slip and large grained clay with lime (see Catalogue no. 2).

Considering its geography and economic conditions, the formal variety of the ceramic ware discovered on the surface in Isauria is less than that of the Mediterranean coastal cities of the neighbouring regions: ‘Flat Cilicia’ and ‘Rugged Cilicia’. However, in this kind of comparison it should be borne in mind that the finds are surface material. The ceramic ware discovered during researches is generally constituted of coarse ware, storage ware and fine ware. The absence on the surface of ceramics produced for transportation gives some, though limited, idea of the commercial activities in the region.

ESA Form 2: This form is a bowl or a dish with thickened rim and a shallow pedestal. The widths of our samples vary between 16 and 22cm. It is considered that the smaller ones are early samples while the wider ones are dated to a later period.10 The type classified as form 12 by Hayes is from the Early Empire Period (see Catalogue nos. 4, 7, 8, 10). Antakya findings11 are evaluated within the Hellenistic Pergamene group. In Gözlükule there are samples of this form both in Late Hellenistic and Early Roman layers.12

It is possible to evaluate the Roman red-slip ware found in the region in three periods: Early Empire Period, Middle Empire or Antonines Period, and Late Ancient Period or Eastern Roman Empire Periods. The origins and dates of this ceramic material were based upon the findings of Anamur,2 Kelenderis,3 Tarsus,4 Samsat,5 Dura Europos,6 Samaria7 and Antiochia.8 We classified the ceramics into

ESA Form 3: This is a bowl form with inturned rim, hemispherical body and a high ring pedestal.13 This form was commonly found in Pompeii.14 Hayes divided these bowls into two groups, dated them to 70-120 A.D., and named them as Form 51 (see Catalogue no. 12).15 Kenrick analysing the Berenice (Bingazi) findings made a parallel dating to Hayes.16

  For the history of the region see Hellenkemper 1990: 30-127 and Talbert 1985: 159 2  Williams 1989: 16. 3  Tekocak 2006, 39 et al. 4   Goldman and Jones 1950: 149-296. 5   Zoroğlu 1986: 69-100. 6   Cox 1949: 8-12. 7   Kenyon 1957: 306-342. 8   Waage 1948: 25 et al. 1

  Hayes 1985.   Kenyon 1957: 329. 11   Waagé 1948: 27. 12   Jones 1950: 231, No. C, fig. 188; 272, No. 769, fig. 203. 13   Kenrick 1985: 239, fig.43. 337.1. 14   Hayes 1991: 188. 15   Hayes 1985: 37 Tav. VI. 19-20. 16   Kenrick 1985: 239. 9

10

33

SOMA 2009 ESA Form 4: Bowl form with a chamfered rim extending outwards. Through the evaluation in terms of the centres where the similar samples of the form were found, it is considered that our sample is of Cilician origins (see Catalogue no. 13).

A.D.25 The best and closest similar samples to ours were discovered in Sagalassos. Poblome also gave the same dates as Hayes here26 (see Catalogue no. 11).

ESA Form 5: ESA craters have rims projecting outwards, short necks and hemispherical bodies a little wider than the rim. Considering other similar samples, it can be claimed that these probably had narrow but high and profiled pedestals (see Catalogue no. 14). Craters are dated to 3025 B.C. in Samaria.17 Early phases of ESA are proposed for the samples in Hama.18 Samsat samples are dated to Early Empire Period.19 They are defined as Form 15 by Hayes.20

We have two samples of this ceramic group from the Late Ancient Period or Eastern Roman Period (graphs 1 and 2). These ceramics are shallow bowls with rounded rim and low ring pedestal. Hayes defined them as Form 1.27 There are many samples of Cyprus Red-Slip in the whole Mediterranean Basin with various slip and clay characteristics.28 The ceramics are dated to the 3rd quarter of the 5th century A.D.

Cyprus Red-Slip Group

Review and Conclusion

Eastern Sigillata Group B

From the ceramics evaluated in this study, we encountered mostly ESA samples (graphs 3 and 4). It is thought that the production centres of the ceramic materials in this group are from the settlements found in Cilicia and Syria.29 The material in this group provides the most samples in terms of both number and variety of forms. The ESA material evaluated in the study are most commonly found in Keçimen, İllice and Oduncu Kalesi respectively (graphs 5 and 6).

We have only two samples from Eastern Sigillata Group B (Graphs 1 and 2). Ceramics in this group are dated to 50-120 A.D. according to their forms. Two forms were determined in ESB group ceramics. Both of the forms are open pots. ESB Form 1: Bowl with inturned rim profiled on the surface in the transition to the body. Similar samples to the form were predominantly found in the centres of the Aegean Sea and western Anatolia; two of them were found in the excavations of Elaiussa Sebaste, quite close to the Isauria region.21 It is interesting that this form, rare in Anatolia, was found in the Isauria region.

Evaluating the ceramics according to the settlements, it was seen that the finds from Keçimen are dated to the beginning of the 1st century B.C. and 5th century A.D.; the finds from İllice date between the 1st century B.C. and 3rd century A.D., and the finds from Oduncu to between the 1st century B.C. and 5th century A.D.

ESB Form 2: Deep dish with right angular, rounded rim and a ring pedestal. It was defined as Form 65 by Hayes22 (see Catalogue no. 16). It can be argued that the form is not common in Anatolia.

ESC group ceramic material is the second most common group. There is only one form and the ceramics in this group, discovered in İllice settlement, are dated to the 3rd quarter of the 2nd century A.D. or the Middle Empire Period. As the production area of this group is the Aegean Sea and its environs, it is significant that the group is now found in a single centre.

Eastern Sigillata Group C We have four samples from Eastern Sigillata Group C (Graphs 1 and 2). All the ceramics in this group have the same form. Hayes defines this form as H2.23 Our samples are dated to the middle of 2nd century A.D. and the 3rd century A.D. (see Catalogue nos. 17-19). The colour of the slip varies from light brown to red (10 YR 7/3-10 YR 4/4-5 YR 5/6. The clay is brown and has lime, sand and mica. This ceramic group is seen in the Aegean Sea and its environs.24

The dates of the two samples from the ESB group are between 50 and 120 A.D. The ceramics were found in the settlements of İllice and Keçimen. It is difficult to evaluate this group accurately as there are only a few samples; the same is also valid for Cyprus Red-Slip. These ceramics are dated to the 3rd quarter of the 5th century A.D. They were discovered in the settlements of Keçimen and Oduncu Kalesi.

Cyprus Sigillata There is one form determined as Cyprus Sigillata. This form is a bowl or a deep dish chamfered inside and outside with a curved rim. It is dated to the early 1st century

All of the settlements discovered in the Isauria region are on road routes overlooking the environment on strategic hills. Moreover, some settlements, like İllice and Keçimen, are also close to water resources and agricultural areas, a situation reflected in the variety of ceramic material. The

  Kenyon 1957: 340.   Christensen 1971: 188. 19   Zoroğlu 1986: 95. 20   Hayes 1985: Tavola III/I. 21   Ferrazzoli 2003: 652, Tav. 14/34. 22   Hayes 1985: 65-66. 23   Hayes 1985: 71-78. 24   Hayes 1972: 316-317. 17 18

  Hayes 1985: 80.   Poblome 1999: 25-26, 139-141, 191, 314-315, 404, Fig.63,4; Künzl 1997: 469-470, 477 e, 27   Hayes 1972: 3; Fırat 1999: Table 46/167. 28   Hayes 1972: 373. 29   Zoroğlu 2005: 243-248. 25 26

34

Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız: Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauria Yıldız, V. 2006. Tarsus Cumhuriyet Alanı Kazılarında Bulunan Doğu Sigillatası A Grubu Seramikleri (Konya, unpublished doctoral thesis). Zoroğlu, L. 1986. ‘Samsat’da Bulunan Doğu Sigillitaları, İlk Rapor’, S.U. Faculty of Science and Letters, Literature Magazine, Issue: 3, 61-100, Konya. Zoroğlu, L. 2005. ‘Roman Fine Wares In Cilicia: An Overview’, Rei Cretaria Romane Favtorum Acta 39 (RCRF) 243-248, Abingdon.

general distribution of the ceramics found at Keçimen (plateau), Sıtma Dede (hill) and İllice (settlement) points to uninterrupted settlement during the Roman Period (see graph 5). The routes of possible roads and layouts of the three settlements in the Roman Period have been also ascertained. The settlement in the region follows the Taşkent-Ermenek and Taşkent-Karaman routes. The route starting from Oduncu Kalesi (researched in 2006) and following Keçimen (Sıtma Dede), İllice, Kıble Korusu and Bağdat Kırı respectively, supports this argument (map 2).

Catalogue ESA Catalogue Form 1 Inventory No: 1 Object: Dish (Hayes Form 1) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22.6cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 2.7cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 5YR 7/6 (orange); Slip: 5 YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); tight clay with silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Has a rim sloping outwards and downwards, narrows down from the body to the bottom. Bibliography: Atlante II, 13-14, Tavola I/2; Yıldız 2006, Plate 1/6 Dating: 100 B.C. according to Hayes

Abbreviations and Bibliography Christensen, A.P. and Johansen C.F. 1971. ‘Hama: Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938, III.2: Les Poteries Hellénistiques et les Terres Sigillées Orientales. Cox, D.H. 1949. The Excavations at Dura-Europas. Final Report IV, part 1, fasc.2: The Greek and Roman Pottery. Ferrazzoli, F. 2003. ‘Instrumentum Domesticum, IX.1 Tipologia dei reperti ceramici e aspetti dele produzioni e della circolazione dei materiali’, in E.E. Scheider (ed) Elaiussa Sebaste II. Vol.2, un porto tra Oriente e Occidente, Roma. Fırat, N. 1999, Perge Konut Alanı Keramiği (Konya, unpublished doctoral thesis). Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. 1985. ‘Sigillate Orientali’, Enciclopedia dell’Arte Classica e Orientale. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Imperio), 1-96, lev.1-33. Hayes, J.W. 1991. Paphos III; The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Nicosia. Hild-Hellenkemper, F. 1990. ‘Kilikien und Isaurien’. Tabual Imperii Byzantini 5. Jones, F.F. 1950.The Pottery, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, Vol. I (ed. H. Goldman), 149-296, Lev.119-210. Princeton Kenrick, P.M. 1985. ‘The Fine Pottery. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Vol. III, Part 1’, Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5, Tripoli. Kenyon, J.W. 1957. The Objects from Samaria, SamariaSebaste III, London. Künzl, S. 1997. Sagalassos Red Slip Ware im Römisch Germanischen Zentralmuseum, Mainz. Poblome, J. 1999. Sagalassos Red Slip Ware – Typology and Chronology Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology, Brepols. Talbert, R.J.A. 1985. Atlas of Classical History, London. Tekocak, M. 2006. Kelenderis Roma Çağı Seramiği (Konya, unpublished doctoral thesis). Waagé, F. 1948. Antioch on-the-Orontes IV, 1, Ceramics and Islamic Coins, s.1-60, Lev.I-XI, Princeton. Williams, C. 1989. Anemurium. The Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery, Wetteren.

Inventory No: 2 Object: Dish Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 23cm; W.T: 0.5cm; H: 3.5cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 5YR 7/6 (orange); Slip Inside: 7.5 YR 5/6 (shiny brown); Outside: 7.5 YR 5/4 (dull brown); tight clay with lime Condition: Dish/bowl rim-body part Description: Rounded rim sloping downwards, strokes of brush and not so deep chamfers on the surface Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola I/1; Yıldız 2006, Plate 1/5 Dating: 100 B.C. according to Hayes Inventory No: 3 Object: Dish (ESA Hayes Form 1) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 19.4cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 2.5cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 10YR 7/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 5 YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); tight clay with silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Has a rim sloping outwards and downwards, narrows down from the body to the bottom; 2 chamfers on the body inside. Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola I/2; Yıldız 2006, Plate 1/6 Dating: 100 B.C. according to Hayes

35

SOMA 2009 Esa Catalogue Form2

Find Place: Oduncu Kalesi surveys Clay: 5YR 7/6 (orange); Slip: 7.5 YR 6/8 (orange); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body and pedestal part Description: Rounded rim extending outwards, pedestal foot Bibliography: Samaria Fig.79, 7; Hama Fig.36, 10.1; Waage 1948, Plate IV 143 f; Atlante II, Tavola II/10; Tel Anafa Plate 15/FW 154; Yıldız 2006, Plate 30/208 Dating: 40 B.C. to 10 A.D.

Inventory No: 4 Object : Dish (ESA Hayes Form 12, Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 21cm; W.T: 0.5cm; H: 3.3cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 5YR 7/6 (orange); Slip: 10 YR 6/8 (brown); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rounded rim sloping outwards Bibliography: Samaria Fig.79, 7; Hama Fig.36, 10.9; Waage 1948, Plate IV 143 f; Atlante II, Tavola II/10; Tel Anafa Plate 15/FW 154; Yıldız 2006, Plate 30/211 Dating: Antakya findings were equated to the Hellenistic Pergamene group. There are samples of this form in both Late Hellenistic and Early Roman layers in Gözlükule.

Inventory No: 10 Object: Dish (ESA Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 18.8cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 3.2cm Find Place: Oduncu Kalesi surveys Clay: 10YR 8/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 5 YR 4/8 (reddish brown); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rounded rim extending outwards Bibliography: Samaria Fig.79, 7; Hama Fig.36, 10.12; Waage 1948, Plate IV 143 f; Atlante II, Tavola II/10; Tel Anafa Plate 15/FW 154; Yıldız 2006, Plate 30/211 Dating: 40 B.C. to 10 A.D.

Inventory No: 5 Object: Dish (ESA Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 17cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 2.4cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 10YR 7/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 5 YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rounded rim sloping outwards Bibliography: Hama Fig.36, 10.12

ESA Catalogue Form 3 Inventory No: 12 Object: Bowl (ESA Hayes Form 50) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 17.6cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 3.7cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 7.5YR 7/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 7.5 YR 5/6 (shiny brown); tight clay with intense mica and lime Condition: Bowl rim-body part Description: Rounded rim, hemispherical body Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola VI/20; Yıldız 2006, Plate 68/498 Dating: Hayes dates this form to 70-120 A.D. A parallel dating was made by Kenrick evaluating the findings of Berenice (Bingazi)

Inventory No: 6 Object: Dish (ESA Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22cm; W.T: 0.7cm; H: 3.9cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 10YR 8/4 (light yellowish orange); Slip: 5 YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rounded rim sloping outwards Bibliography: Samaria Fig.79, 7; Hama Fig.36, 10.4; Waage 1948, Plate IV 143 p; Yıldız 2006, Plate 30/213 Inventory No: 7 Object: Dish (ESA Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22cm; W.T: 0.7cm; H: 3cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 5YR 6/6 (orange); Slip: 2.5 YR 5/8 (shiny brown); tight clay with lime, black sand and silver mica Condition: Dish/bowl rim-body part Description: Rounded rim extending outwards Bibliography: Samaria Fig.79, 7; Hama Fig.36, 10.20; Waage 1948, Plate IV 143 k; Atlante II, Tavola II/10; Yıldız 2006, Plate 32/228 Dating: 40 B.C. to 10 A.D.

ESA Catalogue Form 4 Inventory No: 13 Object: Dish (Hayes Form 64) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22.6cm; W.T: 0.7cm; H: 2.1cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 7.5YR 7/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 5 YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); clay with silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rim extending outwards, a deep chamfer on the rim, a distinct curve from the flat rim to the body Bibliography: Waage 1948, Plate VII 660 f; Atlante II, Tavola VIII/2; Elaiussa Sebaste II tav. 12/9; Ferrazzoli Ferederica A., Elaiussa Sebaste II; Un Porto Tra Oriente e Occidente, Schneider Equini E.(edt.), 2003, Roma Dating: From Early Empire Period according to Jones.

Inventory No: 8 Object: Dish (ESA Kenyon Form 10) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 16cm; D.P: 9.2cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 3.5cm

36

Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız: Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauria ESA Catalogue Form 5

Condition: Bowl rim-body part Description: Rim rounded outside Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola XVIII/2; Hayes 1972, fig.64/2; Hayes Form 2 (çandarlı ware) Dating: 3rd quarter of 2nd century A.D. according to Hayes (see Atlante) Late Roman Pottery, 316-317

Inventory No: 14 Object: Crater Material: Terracotta Dimensions: W.T: 0.5cm; H: n/k Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 7.5YR 8/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 2.5 YR 5/8 (shiny brown); tight clay with lime, sand and mica Condition: Crater body part Description: Triangle decorations on the body, a pendant decoration scraped between horizontal chamfers below these decorations Bibliography: Hama fig.72/27 A 1; Atlante II, Tavola III/1; Zoroğlu 1986, Figure 13/27; Tel Anafa, Plate 23/FW 251 Dating: 100-50 B.C. according to Hayes (Atlante)

Inventory No: 18 Object: Bowl (ESC Hayes Form 2) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 18cm; D.P: 7.8 cm; W.T: 0.5cm; H: 3.6cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 10YR 8/3 (light yellowish orange); Slip Outside: 10 YR 7/3 (dull yellowish orange); Inside: 5YR 5/3 (dull reddish brown); Band inside: 5 YR 5/2 (Greyish brown); tight clay with lime, black sand and intense mica Condition: Bowl rim-body and pedestal part Description: Vertical and rounded rim, a slight turn from the body to the pedestal Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola XVIII/2; Hayes 1972, fig.64/2; Hayes Form 2 (çandarlı ware) Dating: 3rd quarter of 2nd century A.D. according to Hayes (see Atlante) Late Roman Pottery, 316-317

ESB Catalogue Form 1 Inventory No: 15 (Form 1) Object: Bowl Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 19cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 3.1cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 5YR 5/8 (shiny reddish brown); Slip: 5 YR 6/8 (orange); tight clay with lime, black sand and silver mica Condition: Bowl rim-body part Description: Inturned rim, transition to the body with a set on the outer surface of the rim, body narrowing down to the bottom Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola XIV/6- 7; Hayes 1991, 4998/Pag.64; Athenian Agora V Plate 61 G 25, Elaiussa Sebaste II 652, tav. 14/34 Dating: 50-150 A.D. according to Hayes (Atlante)

Inventory No: 19 Object: Bowl (ESC Hayes Form 2) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 20.8cm; W.T: 0.7cm; H: 3.6cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 10YR 7/4 (dull yellowish orange); Slip Inside: 10 YR 4/4 (brown); Outside: none; tight clay with lime, black sand and intense mica Condition: Bowl rim-body part Description: Vertical and rounded rim, outer surface profiled like steps Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola XVIII/2; Hayes 1972, fig.64/2; Hayes Form 2 (çandarlı ware) Dating: 3rd quarter of 2nd century A.D. according to Hayes (see Atlante) Late Roman Pottery, 316-317

ESB Catalogue Form 2 Inventory No: 16 (Form 2) Object: Bowl Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 15cm (approx.); W.T: 0.5cm; H: 4.1cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 7.5YR 7/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 2.5 YR 5/8 (shiny brown); tight clay with mica Condition: Bowl rim-body part Description: Vertical rim sloping outwards and rounded, a slight turn from the body to the pedestal Bibliography: Atlante II Tavola XIV/13 Dating: 70-120 A.D. according to J. Hayes (Atlante)

Inventory No: 20 Object: Bowl (ESC Hayes Form 2) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 13.2cm; D.P: 5.6cm; W.T: 0.4-0.7cm; H: 3.3cm Find Place: İllice surveys Clay: 10YR 4/1 (brownish grey); Slip Inside: 10 YR 4/4 (brown); Outside: none; tight clay with lime, black sand and intense mica Condition: Bowl rim-body-pedestal part Description: Vertical and rounded rim, a soft transition from the body to the pedestal Bibliography: Atlante II, Tavola XVIII/2; Hayes 1972, fig.64/2; Hayes Form 2 (çandarlı ware) Dating: 3rd quarter of 2nd century A.D. according to Hayes (see Atlante) Late Roman Pottery, 316-317

Esc Catalogue Form1 Inventory No: 17 (FORM 1) Name of the Object : Bowl (ESC Hayes form 2) Material of the Object: Terra-cota Dimensions: D.R: 19,8 cm W.T: 0,7 cm H: 2,6 cm Finding Place and Layer: İllice Surveys Clay: 2.5YR 5/8 (shiny brown) Slip: 5 YR 5/6 (shiny reddish brown) Clay with lime and mica 37

SOMA 2009 Cyprus Sıgıllata Catalogue Form 1

Description: Rounded rim, an irregular and not so deep roulette decoration on the outer surface of the rim and the body Bibliography: Hayes 1972, fig.80/1; Waage 1948, Plate 10/928; Kenrick 1985, Plate 75/B714; Williams 1989, fig.10 152 Dating: 3rd quarter of the 5th century according to Hayes (a parallel date was given by Williams for the Anamur findings); Tekocak 2006 Plate 15 96/97; Adak-Adıbelli 2006, Plate 33/393

Inventory No: 11 Object: Dish/bowl Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 17cm; W.T: 0.4cm; H: 2.6cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 2.5YR 4/8 (reddish brown); Slip: 2.5YR 3/6 (dark reddish brown) Condition: Dish/Bowl rim-body part Description: Rounded rim, a deep chamfer inside and outside in the transition from the rim to the body, a distinct turn in the middle of the body to the tondo Bibliography: Tarsus I Plate 202 catalogue 750 page 271, Antiochia IV 40-41 form 677, Hama pg. 194, Atlante II 42 Dating: Middle Empire period (2nd to 3rd centuries A.D.) according to Jones; late 2nd century A.D. according to Hayes. This is an uncommon form type, but found in Cilicia and Syria

Inventory No: 9 Object: Dish/bowl (Hayes Form 1) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22cm; W.T: 0.4-0.6cm; H: 2.7cm Find Place: Oduncu Kalesi surveys Clay: 10YR 8/8 (yellowish orange); Slip: 72.5YR 6/8 (orange); tight clay with lime, sand and silver mica Condition: Dish rim-body part Description: Rounded rim, an irregular and not so deep roulette decoration on the outer surface of the rim and the body Bibliography: Hayes 1972, fig.80/1; Waage 1948, Plate 10/928; Kenrick 1985, Plate 75/B714; Williams 1989, fig.10 152 Dating: 3rd quarter of the 5th century according to Hayes (a parallel date was given by Williams for the Anamur findings); Tekocak 2006 Plate 15 96/97; Adak- Adıbelli 2006, Plate 33/39

Cyprus Red-Slip Group Form 1 Inventory No: 21 Object: Dish/bowl (Hayes Form 1) Material: Terracotta Dimensions: D.R: 22cm; W.T: 0.4-0.6cm; H: 3.4cm Find Place: Keçimen Plateau surveys Clay: 5YR 6/8 (orange); Slip Inside: 5YR 5/4 (faint reddish brown); Outside: 10YR 6/3 (dull yellowish orange); tight clay with lime and silver mica Condition: Dish/bowl rim-body part

38

a

Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız: Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauri

39

SOMA 2009

40

a

Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız: Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauri

41

SOMA 2009

42

a

Asuman Baldıran, Zafer Korkmaz and Volkan Yıldız: Roman Red-Slip Ware From Isauri

43

44

Typological Assessment of Roman Imperial-Era Nymphaeums of the Lycian, Pamphylian and Cilician Regions Ayşe F. Erol Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Typology of nymphaeum facades

Anatolian nymphaeums of the Roman Imperial Era are not characterized with a particular plan style that may be associated with nymphaeum architecture. Present data show us that façade designs of public buildings of that period were also used in the facades of nymphaeums. Comparing the bases on which these Roman Imperial Era Nymphaeums rise, it is possible to categorize them as nymphaeums with apsidal, U-shape, and as a synthesis of these two, nymphaeums with both apsidal and U-shape foundations.1 This presentation focuses on nymphaeums with U-shape foundations that constitute most of the examples that have been found in the regions taken into consideration. It aims to typologically analyze those buildings according to their façade designs.

1. A straight wall formed by aediculae consisting of a row of columns in front of the façade wall and niches in between. 2. A façade wall whose centre is emphasized with a large niche, and to the both sides of that there existed smaller aediculea and niches. 3. A façade wall that is characterized with three large apsidal niches. 1. The first style consists of those formed by an aediculae consisting of a row of free-standing columns and niches situated either between the aediculae, or attached to the façade wall. Represented by the façade architecture observed in the theatres of Perge (Öztürk 2000, 294-5, Figure 4; Lanckoronski 2005, 54, Fig. 37) and Sagalassos (Vandeput 1992, 100-102, Fig. 3), this style’s most attractive examples are the façade walls of Ephesus’ Celsus Library (Scherrer 1995, 134, Plate 1) and Miletos Traianus’ nymphaeum (Hülsen 1919, 1-52, Plate 1-63). Five nymphaeum examples of this type will be evaluated: nymphaeums in the Perge City Gate complex, the nymphaeum of Phaselis, the triple-basin nymphaeum of Side, and the Olba-Ura nymphaeum.

U-shaped nymphaeums, which looked like winged stoas with their façade designs, are known from Tenos in the Middle Hellenistic period and from Sagalassos in Late Hellenistic times (Waelkens-Poblome 1993, 43-86, Fig. 3, 9, 10). The examples from the agora of Thasos (4th century B.C.) and the Phillippos stoa of Megalopolis, which involved a side-wing design (Wycherley 1986, 103, 104, Fig. 30), provided a model for nymphaeums of the Late Hellenistic period. U-shaped Roman Imperial era nymphaeums, in turn, can be observed with multi-storeyed columns that rise on a high podium wall, a façade wall decorated with aediculae and niches, and wings extending forward from both edges of that wall. They share architectural similarities with Roman theatre buildings. The rectangular basin that stands between the wings in the nymphaeum designs function as the proskenion on which plays were performed in theatres.

(Figure 1) F2. The Nymphaeum of Perge City Gate Complex. This feature inside the U-shaped courtyard of the Hellenistic city gate was turned into a spectacular avenue in 120-122 AD (Akurgal 1988, 542). A nymphaeum was placed to the west of that avenue. Made of limestone, it comprises of a façade wall with rich ornaments and a basin in front of it. The large basin is confined with the parapet wall to the front, with two semi-circular basins in between. The fact that the architectural material obtained from the area has been organized in two groups leads us to think that the façade wall was double-storeyed. The presence of postaments on top of the podium wall points to an aediculea architecture supported by columns. In each storey there were four niches between the aediculea. Some parts from the upper storey show us that the entablature was continued and that in line with the appropriateness of the materials in terms of their size, a triangular pediment most probably crowned the aedicule on the second storey. To the south, just next to the building, there is a barrelvaulted niche. Since its foundation is older than that of the nymphaeum itself, it must be dated to an earlier period than the latter. However, with the construction of

In front of the façade wall, these buildings have a rectangular basin serving as a reservoir and a secondary basin as a dipping pool in front of the first one. They are separated with a parapet wall. The façade wall and the wings are decorated with rectangular and semi-circular niches and aediculae, which are ornamented with statues. These buildings offer three types of façade designs, whose style is understood to have been influenced by that period’s scaenae frons architecture.

 For the aforementioned three types of nymphaeums, see: for the apsidal type: the nymphaeum of Alexandria Troas: R. Koldewey, ‘Das Bad von Alexandria Troas’ AM 9 1884, 47, Plate 3; for the U-shaped, the nymphaeum of Miletos Traianus: Hülsen, 1919, Plate 48; for the hybird type: the nymphaeum of Laodiceia ad Lycum: R. Gınouves, Laodicee du Lycos, Le nymphee, Paris, 1969, Plate 46. 1

45

SOMA 2009 the nymphaeum, that niche was incorporated into the new building and its double-storeyed design was extended to the south. The aedicule outcrop to the right of the niche constitutes the common outcrop of the main façade wall. The Greek inscription on the niched part informs us that the nymphaeum was dedicated to Artemis Pergaia, the Emperor Septimus Severus and his sons, namely M. Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) and Geta, Empress Julia Domna and their beloved city of Perge (Mansel 1975a, 70). Thus the building is dated to the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211 AD).

long, winged U-plan and its columned design in front of the façade wall, it is possible to conclude that this building can be dated to the 2nd century AD, when such structures were commonly found (Erol 1999, 122). (Figure 4) Olba-Ura nymphaeum. This edifice is situated to the east of the city, at the outskirts of the acropolis; the building has been preserved up to its 12m (Keil-Wilhelm 1931, 81) and it has a façade wall rising on a high podium wall and side-wing walls extending forwards from it. From its currently preserved height it can be asserted that it was a double-storeyed building. Much architectural material scattered all around points to the presence of an aediculaed and niched design that had been supported by two-storeyed columns. A block of rounded architrave that was obtained in good condition suggests the presence of circular niches, either in the centre, or between the aediculae. The outcrops, which were placed into the façade wall as consoles, must have been designed to facilitate the easy flow of water into the frontal basin from the pipes laid down into holes. Holes carved on the parapet wall of the large basin in turn point to the existence of a secondary, dipping pool. To the right of the parapet wall lays another one, which is semi-circular. It is dated to a later period and must have functioned for washing or as a washstand. Stone benches, which were found in fragments, had been designed to provide seating and cool relaxation for pool users. An inscription obtained from the aqueduct dates its completion to the reign of the Emperor Septimus Severus (Keil-Wilhelm 1931, 83). Both the aqueduct and the nymphaeum share the same masonry working and basic material. The nymphaeum must have been erected right after the completion of the aqueduct, namely towards the beginning of the 3rd century AD.

(Figure 2) Perge F4 nymphaeum. This structure is located to the south of the niched part of the southern section of the nymphaeum F2. It resembles the previously mentioned nymphaeum to a great extent by virtue of the niched and aediculaed façade design, the large basin in front of it, and small basins placed in front of this basin. The courtyard’s highly public nature continued to make it one of the most desirable areas of Perge in which to erect a public monument. Two structures can be placed specifically in the reign of Septimius Severus by their dedicatory inscriptions: a propylon marking the eastern entrance into the bath complex and the nymphaeum of Aurelina Paulina, which is considered in this section. A dedicatory plaque informs us that Aurelia Paulina, a priestess to Artemis, dedicated her monument to Septimius Severus, Artemis Pergaia and Perge (Klingenschmid 2001, 231). (Figure 3) The Side Triple-Basin Nymphaeum is located in front of the gate that provides access to the inner city. It is formed by four aediculae rising on the podium wall, and the niched part on the façade wall. It takes its name from the triple-pools that were placed between the aediculae. These aediculae were crowned with triangular pediments. It was through the water spouts placed within the niches carved into the façade wall that the frontal basins were filled. The nymphaeum was dated to the second half of the 3rd century AD, because of the low, curved frieze at the entablature and flat palmette ornaments, which lost their plastic forms (Mansel 1978, 109). The building can be dated to the second half of the 3rd century AD by virtue of this relief being found on a grave monument in the city’s western necropolis (Mansel 1978, 111).

Ephesos Hydredocheion,2 Street, the nymphaeum of Ephesos Magnesian Gate3 and the Nicomedia4 nymphaeum are other examples from Anatolia of this first style. 2. The stage building of the Aspendos theatre (Lanckoronski 2005, 106-107, Plate 21, 22, 24) and Ephesos theatre (Heberdey et al. 1912, 57, Plate 4). This style is characterized by a remarkable central section, where a fairly large niche was generally crowned with triangular pediments in the centre of the façade wall. Next to that, other niched and aediculated parts are placed. In the regions that this paper focuses on, this style can be exemplified in nymphaeums of Aspendos, Perge, located at the end of the north-south colonnaded street, and of Vespasianus’ nymphaeum at Side.

The Phaselis Nymphaeum. This structure was situated in front of the Hadrianus agora in the city; the building opens up to the city avenue through its frontal façade. It has a façade wall, two sidewalls, in effect wings that extend forward from both of its edges, and a large reservoir in front of the façade wall that involves the wings walls (Erol 1999, 122; Klingenschmid 2001, 232, Plate 161a). Water holes on the parapet wall restrict this basin’s use to that of a secondary dipping pool. Columns and their bases, which are found in front of the façade wall, make us think of a columned design that could have been placed here. Marks on the façade wall are remindful of the idea that water must have been brought to the building through clay pipes on the south-eastern wall of the Hadrianus agora. With its

  For the Ephesos Hydredocheion, see E. Fossel, G. Langmann, ‘Das Nymphaeum des C. Laecenius Bassus in Ephesos’, Antike Welt, 14/3 1983: 53-55, Plate 4. 3  For the Ephesos Magnesian Gate Nymphaeum, see J. Keil, ‘Vorlaufiger bericht über die ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, Öjh, 23 1926: 269-274, Plate 54; A. Bammer, ‘Elemente Flavisch- Trajanischer Architektur fassaden aus Ephesos’, Öjh, 52 1978/80:86, Plate 18. 4   For Nicomedia nymphaeum, see N. Fıratlı, ‘Nicomedia’, Belleten 39, 1975: 500. 2

46

Ayşe F. Erol: Typological Assessment of Roman Imperial-Era Nymphaeums of the Lycian, Pamphylian and Cilician Regions (Figure 5) Aspendos Nymphaeum. This feature was built as a double-storeyed structure to the north of the city, close to the city agora. It was formed by a façade wall with its aedicule outcrops at both sides, and short wings. On each story we can observe a façade design consisting of five niches carved into the façade wall and aediculae in between. The central niche was built larger than the other semi-circular ones at the sides, and it was crowned with a triangular pediment so as to attach it to the aedicule complex formed by columns placed to both sides of the central niche (Lanckoronski 2005, Plate 19). Dolphin heads, with hollowed mouths, must have belonged to water spouts that had been placed within these niches (Lanckoronski 2005, 101). The second storey was merely decorative as far as the absence of any water instalment facility informs us. On the other hand we do not have complete information on the basin of the nymphaeum. It is understood that water reached the nymphaeum through the aqueduct of the city. There is an inscription whose font dates the aqueduct to the 2nd century AD (Hörmann 1929, 274), and since the nymphaeum was supplied by this aqueduct, it must date to the same century. The Aspendos theatre is dated to the Antonine period by means of a bilingual inscription (Piras 2006, 399). The scaenae frons of the theatre and the facade of the nymphaeum show great resemblance in their architectural arrangement. It seems secure to also date the Aspendos nymphaeum somewhere in the Antonine period. In addition, similarities observed in the decoration of the Aspendos nymphaeum and the Sagalassos Upper agora nymphaeum,5 which is dated to the period of the Antonines, lead us to think that the former nymphaeum can also be dated to the same era (Piras 2006, 399).

name of Aurelius Seilanus Neonianus Stasios, the leader of the Pamphylian Union. This asserts that the building must have undergone some repair work, since this name refers to the first quarter of the 3rd century AD (Mansel 1974, 145). With its location at the end of the colonnaded street, and with gates placed on both of its sides, the nymphaeum appears as a large complex. Approximately 250m south of the nymphaeum there is an avenue where a north-south colonnaded street meets its east-west counterpart. Looking from the avenue, the colonnaded street, its cascaded channel and the nymphaeum all present a spectacular view. Situated at the end of the main north-south thoroughfare, the north nymphaeum had two principal functions: it provided an elaborate terminus for the city’s main aqueduct, feeding a canal that ran most of the thoroughfare’s length, and also served as a propylon marking the main route to the oldest and most sacred area of Perge, its acropolis. (Figure 7) Side, Vespasianus’ nymphaeum. This nymphaeum is attached to the western side of the monumental gate that provided access to the inner city in the Late Roman period. Located in front of the city wall of the 4th century, it rises on a podium wall which is placed on a two-staged platform. The nymphaeum has a façade wall and its plan is characterized by two elements: two aediculae at both sides of the façade wall and between these aediculae, a semi-circular niche. The niche is crowned with a triangular pediment, as are the aediculae. A twoline inscription on the top fascia of the architrave starts with the name of the Emperor Vespasianus and states that he was appointed as consul for the third time and as the people’s tribunus (Bean 1965, 34). This does not, however, indicate the year of 71 AD for the building. Such a timeline is also supported by ornaments. The building, which took the name of Vespasianus because of its architrave, was then subjected to some repair work and was turned into a nymphaeum (Mansel 1964, 192). The existence of a secondary basin in front of the first one is also apparent. Water first reached the central niche through the pipes that had been placed to the centre of it. From there it further flowed to the secondary basin through water spouts. An inscription found on a field block mentions the name Marcus Severius, thus indicating a timeline for the 3rd century AD. Mansel suggests that this monument had been brought here from somewhere else and had been attached to the niched wall so as to form a nymphaeum structure (Mansel 1978, 119). After the completion of the gate that provided access to the inner city in the Late Roman period, it was surrounded with many nymphaeums, as if the nymphaeum design in front of the city gate was being repeated. With its location on the colonnaded street and its link to the gate, this building enjoyed a favourable position.

(Figure 6) Perge F3 nymphaeum. This nymphaeum is located on the outskirts of the acropolis, at the end of the north-south colonnaded street. It has a façade wall 21m wide (Mansel 1973, 144) and two side-wings extending forward from both edges. The façade design is formed by a large central niche and aediculae on both sides. The middle niche of the arched three niches on the façade wall was carved larger than the others and was the central niche. In that niche there was a statue of a river god, probably Kestros. In front of the façade wall lays a basin. It is followed by a cascaded channel that runs throughout the entire street. On both sides of the façade wall there are gates covered by vaulted arches. They are followed by forward leaning long wing parts. The scattered parts of the postament, base, column and capital are categorized in two groups according to their sizes, leading us to think that it was a double-storeyed and columned structure. Its architectural ornaments, details, and two statues of the Emperor Hadrianus found in a field, point out that in its first phase the nymphaeum was built during the reign of Hadrianus (Mansel 1974, 145). However, on the right-wing podium the name ‘Aurelius’ is carved, which is the first   For the decoration of the Sagalassos Upper Agora Nymphaeum, see L. Vandeput, The Architectural Decoration in Asia Minor. Sagalassos: a case study, Leuven, 1997, 140. 5

47

SOMA 2009 Ephesus’ Traianus nymphaeum,1 Sagalassos’ Upper Agora nymphaeum2 and the Nymphaeum of Selge3 are among the examples from Anatolia.

to the period of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Mansel 1978, 107). On a series of inscribed bases next to the city gate, there are remarks stating that in the first quarter of the 3rd century AD Briyonianos Lollianos and his noble wife Quirina Patra sponsored repair works to the main water supply of the nymphaeum (Mansel 1978, 94). By taking architectural ornaments into consideration, Mansel dated the building to the period of Antoninus, i.e. around 140-180 AD (Mansel 1978, 108). As the inscription itself reveals, the nymphaeum predates the inscription, which further supports Mansel’s timeline. The avenue between the city gate and the nymphaeum were paved with stones so as to make it appear as an extension of the colonnaded street behind the city gate. The nymphaeum is locally linked to the colonnaded street and to the avenue. The nymphaeum of Side is also found to have provided a model for the similarly planned Septizonium nymphaeum in Rome, dated to the reign of Severus (Dombart 1923, 1579, Fig. 2).

3. Nymphaeums with a U-shaped façade wall dominated by three large apsidal niches. This style, which was realized by placing apsidal niches next to each other, or repeating the features, was underlined by a design constituted by three niches in scaenae frons architecture; niches were covered by a dome. This design, seen at Sabratha (North Africa4) and Bosra Theater (Syria5), stands out as a significant feature in (mostly) Rome’s eastern provinces. Its most remarkable example appears to be the monumental nymphaeum of Side. (Figure 8) Side’s monumental nymphaeum. This structure is located outside the city wall, in front of the monumental city gate. Preserved to a height of 12m (Mansel 1978, 95), the building is formed by a façade wall, consisting of horizontal stone lines, and two wings extending forward from both sides of that wall. Inside the façade wall, three semi-circular niches were carved at 3.65m intervals. Stone semi-dome forms covered these niches. In front of this niched façade wall lays a basin with a capacity of 500 cubic meters (Mansel 1978, 95), which also includes the wings at the sides. The basin was confined by fifteen small monolithic marble basins which were placed along its frontal wall. Stone benches, which were found in fragments, had been designed to provide seating and relaxation near the water. The sizes and ornaments of the parts obtained suggest a triple-storeyed building, which rose on a high podium wall. While columns were situated with six of them at a time between the niches, they had four at the edges. Each niche had water spouts between the columns. The absence of any water reservoir behind the façade wall tells us that the nymphaeum was supplied directly through the main water feed. Directly above the lower-level column rows, there were aediculae whose columns overlapped with those of the lower level. These aediculae were crowned with triangular and semi-circular pediments. It has not been possible to sketch out the plan of the third floor precisely. At the centre the wings had one semi-circular niche each, and beneath them an aedicule design formed by columns at both sides of these niches. Inscribed statue bases and other fragments lead us to assert that the statues had been placed between the columns and in front of the façade wall. The majority of these belong

Other Anatolian examples for this style can be given as the Lower Agora Nymphaeum in Sagalassos6 and the nymphaeum located on the west bank of the temenos of the Apollon temple in Hierapolis.7 The nymphaeum was built in the Severan age to give the sanctuary of Apollo a monumental facade towards the plateia. Another interesting example can be found in Perge (Figure 9). Perge theatre’s stage building nymphaeum appears as a combination of two structures: a nymphaeum and a stage building, whose façade with its five niches faces an avenue to the east of the theatre which is often thought to be a ceremonial area. The five semi-circular niches are covered with semi-circular domes. The central niche is 2.75m high (Lanckoronski 1892, 54). There are semi-circular basins in front of them and these basins are confined frontally with a parapet wall. Between the niches, base profiles belonging to support columns were obtained. They carried Corinthian columns as high as 6.9m (Klingenschmid 2001, 227). Because the anthemion frieze of the entablature part displays some features that date back to the period of Caracalla (198-208 AD) (Mansel 1975b, 367) this section should date to the same timing. Therefore, it can be conceived that the stage building built in the second half of the 2nd century AD, was combined with the nymphaeum structure towards the end of the century. The building, with its niched and coloumned architecture, displays a decorative façade and thus, along with the avenue it opened up to, it must have presented an attractive scene for ceremonies.

  For the Ephesos Traianus Nymphaeum, see A. Bammer, ‘Elemente Flavisch-Traayanischen Architekturfassaden aus Ephesos’, Öjh, 52, 1978/80: 67-89; F. Miltner, “Vorlaufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, Öjh, 44, 1959: 326-354. 2   For the Sagalassos Upper Agora Nymphaeum, see M. Waelkens and P. M. Vermeersch, ‘Sagalassos 1995’, 18. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 1996: 129-132. 3   For the Selge Nymphaeum, see A. Machatschek and M. Schwarz, Bauforschung in Selge, Wien, 1981, 66-70; Dorl-Klingenschmid, 2001, Plate 169a. 4   For the Sabratha theatre stage building, see L. Crema, L’Architettura Romana, Torino, 1959, 545, Plate 712. 5   For the Bosra theatre stage building, see E. Will, ‘Roman Art of the Eastern Empire’, Encylopedia of World Art, Vol. 12, 1966, 293. 1

  For the Sagalassos Lower Agora Nymphaeum, see K.G. Lanckoronski, Stadte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II, Wien, 1892, 133-134, Fig. 104; Dorl-Klingenschmid, 2001, Plate 167. 7   For the nymphaeum that is located to the west of the Hierapols Apollon Temple Temenos, see C. Humann, ‘Altertümer von Hierapolis’, Jdl, 4 1898, 12, 65; De. Bernardi Ferrero, ‘Alcune Considerazioni sul ninfeo di Hierapolis antistante il tempio di Apollo’, in: Friezinger/Krinzinger, 1999, 695-702, Plate 176/2. 6

48

Ayşe F. Erol: Typological Assessment of Roman Imperial-Era Nymphaeums of the Lycian, Pamphylian and Cilician Regions Conclusion

Bibliography Akurgal, E. 1988. Anadolu Uygarlıkları, İstanbul. Bean, G. E. 1965. Side Kitabeleri, Ankara. Dombart, T. 1923. ‘Septizonium’, RE II A,2: 1578. Dorl-Klingenschmid, C. 2001. Prunkbrunnen in Kleinasiatischen Stadten, Münich. Erol, A. F. 1999. Aiolia, İonia, Karia, Lykia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, Kilikia Bölgesi Çeşme Yapıları, Ankara (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation). Heberdey, R., Niemann, G., Wilberg, W. 1912. ‘Das Theater in Ephesos’, FIE, 2: 157 Lanckoronski, K. G. 2005. Pamphylia ve Pisidia Kentleri, trans. by Selma Bulgurlu Gün, İstanbul. Lanckoronski, K. G. 1892. Stadte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II, Wien. Hörman, H. 1929. ‘Das Nymphaum zu Aspendos’, JdI, 44:263-274. Humann, C. 1898. ‘Altertümer von Hierapolis’, JdI, 4:1213. Hülsen, J. 1919. Das Nymphaeum, Milet 1/5, Berlin. Keil, J. and Wilhelm, A. 1931. ‘Denkmaler aus dem Rauhen Kilikien’, MAMA, 3:81-84. Mansel, A. M. 1978. ‘Side’, 1947-1966 Yılları Kazıları ve Araştırmalarının Sonuçları, Ankara. Mansel, A. M. 1975a. ‘Ausgrabungen ın Pamphylien 1957-1972’, AA, 90: 65-70. Mansel, A. M. 1975b. ‘Die Nymphaen von Perge’, IstMitt, 25:367-372. Mansel, A. M. 1974. ‘1972 Perge Kazısı Ön Raporu’, T.A.D., 21/1: 112-113. Mansel, A. M. 1973. ‘1971 Perge Kazısı’, T.A.D, 20/2: 144-145. Mansel, A. M. 1970. ‘1970 yılı Perge kazısına Dair Önrapor’, T.A.D., 19/1: 169-184 Mansel, A. M. 1964. ‘Side Vespasianus Anıtı’, Belleten, 28:186- 197. Öztürk, A. 2000. ‘Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen an der Fassade des Theaters von Perge’, AA, 1:285-340. Piras, A. G. S. 2006. ‘Façade Nymphaea in Asia Minor’, Cura Aquarum in Ephesus Volume 2, ed. by Gilbert Wiplinger, Leuven: 397-400. Scherrer, P. 1995. Ephesos der Neue Führer, Wien. Vandeput, L. 1992. ‘The Theatre Façade at Sagalassos’, AS, XVII: 99-117. Waelkens, M. and Poblome, J. 1993. Sagalassos II, Leuven.

Imperial-Roman period nymphaeums were remarkable with their façade designs, which were several storeyed, often built with indents and outcrops such as niches and aediculea and enriched with rich decorations. They presented the characteristic nymphaeum style in Anatolia in that period. Façade designs of these buildings are understood to have been influenced by the contemporary scanea frons architecture to a large extent. This type of nymphaeums was first built from the early 1st century AD and was then popular throughout the 2nd and early 3rd centuries A.D. The reigns of Emperor Traianus and Hadrianus witnessed the most intensive architectural activity. The material obtained from the Empire’s central and western provinces belong to the niched nymphaeum that were carved into the façade wall. There are a few examples of that style as presented with those discovered in the gardens of Ostia and Bolsena. The observation that multi-storeyed monumental examples are found mostly in Rome’s eastern provinces can be explained by the attempt of the Empire to project its power and might outside Italy. The purpose of the multi-storeys, whose second and third floors did not generally perform any water-related functions, was to impress the visitor by showing the water coming into city. It was probably meant to disguise the large aqueduct structure built behind the façade wall. The fact that buildings with aediculae architecture were often found at important locations within a city (streets, avenues or intersection points), leads us to conclude that this architectural design must have served as witness to the city’s welfare and prosperity, rather than as mere buildings with basic architectural functions. They created awe and admiration by virtue of their extraordinary façades and decorations. Finding evidence of benches to provide seating around these buildings is especially important in proving that these facilities were meant to represent a public amenity for leisure enjoyment around free-flowing water.

49

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1. Perge: City Gate Complex Nymphaeum F2 (Klingenschmid 2001, Plate 159a)

Fig. 2. Perge: Nymphaeum F4 (Klingenschmid 2001, Plate 160a)

Fig. 3a. Side: Three-basin Nymphaeum (Klingenschmid 2001, Plate 170a)

Fig. 3b. Side: Reconstruction of the Three-Basin Nymphaeum (Mansel 1978, Fig. 116)

Fig. 4. Olba-Ura: Nymphaeum (Keil-Wilhelm 1931, Plate 104)

50

Ayşe F. Erol: Typological Assessment of Roman Imperial-Era Nymphaeums of the Lycian, Pamphylian and Cilician Regions

Fig. 5a. Aspendos: Plan of the Nymphaeum (Lanckoronski 2005, Plate 19)

Fig. 5b. Aspendos: Partial Reconstruction of the Nymphaeum (Lanckoronski 2005, Plate 19)

Fig. 6. Perge: F3 Nymphaeum (Mansel 1975, Plate 57)

Fig. 7. Side: Plan of Vespasian’s Nymphaeum (Mansel 1964, Fig. 3)

Fig. 8. Side: Plan of Monumental Nymphaeum (Lanckoronski 2005, Plate XXX)

Fig. 9. Perge: Theatre Stage Building Nymphaeum (Mansel 1975, Plate 70/2)

51

52

The Dams of the Stratonikeia Region Coskun Dasbacak Archaeology Department, Science and Art Faculty, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey

Water is indispensable for man and populations have striven to control it by the use of dams for daily and agricultural usage since earliest times. The first example of an agricultural dam is believed to an example from Mesopotamia. A dam was built in the name of the Hittite goddess Hepat in Alacahöyük (Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2008, 525-536). The Urartian Empire built dams, ponds and watering channels to irrigate areas of eastern Anatolia. Lake Keşiş, Lake Kırca Dam and Menua (Şamram) are fine examples of water-control systems built with a great engineering knowledge. Small were also constructed. An example is Harabe Dam, built of chalk, located 9km east of Van. Xenophon wrote about the building of a dam to manage the waters of thee Tigris.1 The dam built in the middle of 3rd century BC in the Mytikas valley (Greece) provides an example from the Classical period.

side rested on rock, whereas the western side was built on clayey soil. A 2m long section along the western side has a depression in the soil 0.30m deep, below which was a limy layer of 0.3m, a coal layer of 0.5m, and a clayey layer of 0.50m. The Göçükdere dam is a small-scale feature providing daily water by the control of local rain and spring waters. Its height, use of large blocks, stair system, smooth inner north section, and thick mortar, are all characteristics shared with water structures 04BS08 and 05BS01 found at Börükçü. Water structure 04BS08 was discovered during work in 2004 to the west of Börükçü (Fig. 5). Large blocks of limestone were used for the structure, which was built on a sloping field oriented north/south, with the recesses filled with small stones. Although natural, unworked blocks were used, there is evidence of careful masonry skills in the areas that would have been visible. The outer face of the eastern side was stepped; the south side has a depression in the compressed soil 3m deep filled with small stones.

Nero had three dams by the river Anio, constructed during the building of his own villa.2 Two were for storing purpose and made of travertin blocks and bricks (Smith 1970). Dam building for water control needs was very common in the Roman Period. Fine examples in Anatolia are at Aizaoi (Çavdarhisar) and the Örükaya Dam at Alaca in Çorum. Both dams are made of large cut blocks and date after the 2nd century AD. The largest structures, symbolizing the power of the Roman Empire, were to be found great centres, such as Constantinople.

Water structure 05BS01 at Börükçü (Figs. 6-7) was discovered during works in 2005 (Tırpan and Söğüt 2007, 591-612). It was built on a sloping ground, similar to structure 04BS08, with large limestone blocks; it is 2.3m long, 0.8m wide and of 3m high. The recesses between the blocks were filled with smaller stones. The western side of the feature is tilted; its inner sides were built more carefully and smoothly, and made stepped. The steps are 0.2-0.35m wide. These steps were used, of course, as the water level rose and fell. There are layers of small stones around the structure.

Recently, a number of dams/water-control structure and been found during excavations at Stratonikeia, Lagina and the surrounding towns of Börükçü, Beybağı and Göçükdere (Fig. 1) (Tırpan and Söğüt 2009, 243-266). These are small features, designed for the control of rain and spring waters for daily usage and irrigation.

Another water structure was found in Stratonikeia (Figs. 8-11). It is located on the edge of the Milas-Yatağan highway to the south of the city. The structure, which is 30m in length, east-west, was constructed of marble slabs. At the east and west ends of the marble structure, comprising 13 blocks, there is a further 2m of stone wall. It was built to prevent the soil on the eastern and western sides from sliding and filling there. A single block of marble on the wall is 2.5m long, 0.8m high, and the upper level is 0.55m wide. The blocks forming the wall were closely fitted so as to prevent water from leaking, and so shaped as to prevent them from collapsing under the pressure accumulating behind. The back surfaces of the blocks were smoothed with anathyrosis. There are small channels of rough work in two places on the upper surface of the marble wall. There is a rough floor composed of small stones to a depth of 1.3m, and a silt layer 0.8m deep

The Göçükdere dam was built across the east and west of a dry stream bed (Figs. 2-4). It is 13.9m long, 2.7m wide and 5.35m high. Together with the blocks of marble, rough stones were used with mortar made of slaked lime and sand, containing clay roofing tile debris. The spolien marble blocks are 1m long and 0.53m wide. There are 7 steps, made of rough stones on its southern side and smooth spolien marble blocks on its northern side. The undamaged part of the first step from the top is 4.8m long, 0.56m wide and 0.45m long. The distance between the first and second step is 0.14m. The undamaged part of the seventh step is 2.8m long and 0.50m high. Mortar containing clay roofing tile debris was used between the seven steps. Sloping from the east to the west, the eastern   Xenophon 2,4,13   Plinius NH, III, 12.

1 2

53

SOMA 2009 Bibliography

from the bottom surface to the east. There is also a fill layer, 0.5m deep, of soil and small stones.

Çınaroğlu, A. and Çelik, D. 2008. ‘2006 Yılı Alacahöyük Kazısı’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Cilt II, 525-536, Ankara Smith, A.F.N. 1970. ‘The Roman Dams of Subiaco’, Technology and Culture, Vol.11, No.1 (Jan), 58-68, (John Hopkins Univ. Pres). Tırpan, A. and Söğüt, B. 2006. ‘Lagina ve Börükçü 2004 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 27. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Cilt 2, 257-270, Ankara. Tırpan, A. and Söğüt, B. 2007. ‘Lagina ve Börükçü 2005 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Cilt 2, 591-612, Ankara. Tırpan, A. and Söğüt, B. 2009. ‘Lagina ve Börükçü 2007 Çalışmaları’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı Cilt 4, 243266, Ankara

This structure is a small-scale dam built to meet the needs of the city by controlling the the Işık stream in the southern part of Stratonikeia. The small dam structures 04BS08 and 05BS01, found during the Börükçü archaeological digs, must have been built in the Classical period, dated by the nearby pottery kilns, graveyards and workshops that have been assigned to that time (Tırpan and Söğüt 2006, 257-270). The Stratonikeia dam was built in Roman times and was later used by Byzantine inhabitants. Taking into account the materials and labour required, the Göçükdere structure must be Byzantine. These workers used stone and ceramic materials (bricks and tiles) reused from local, earlier buildings. Since the Göçükdere dam is located very close to Beybağı, a 12th- or 13th-century Byzantine settlement, it must also have been built within this period. These water features at Göçükdere, Börükçü and Stratonika cannot be classified as large dams. They are small structures for managing springs and rain waters, made for daily usage and sometimes for agricultural purposes.

Figure 1: Stratonikeia Region

Figure 2: Göçükdere Dam

Figure 3: Detail of Göçükdere Dam 54

Coskun Dasbacak: The Dams of the Stratonikeia Region

Figure 4: Plan of Göçükdere Dam

Figure 5: Börükçü Dam (04BS08) Figure 6: Börükçü Dam (05BS01)

Figure 7: Plan of Börükçü Dam (05BS01)

Figure 8: Stratonikeia Dam 55

SOMA 2009

Figure 9: Plan of Stratonikeia Dam

Figure 10: Detail of Stratonikeia Dam

Figure 11: Detail of Stratonikeia Dam (from back)

56

Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel: An Endangered Cultural Resource Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen Israel Antiquities Authority The cultural heritage on the Mediterranean coasts reflects important chapters and events in the history of humanity for the last ten thousand years. The coastal and underwater heritage is rapidly eroded due to sea level rise, global changes and rapid coastal development. Ancient coastal settlements and submerged sites are being destroyed by marine erosion. Actions taken by Israel to rescue, protect and preserve the marine cultural heritage include: underwater rescue surveys, monitoring coastal erosion, risk assessment surveys, pilot projects for protecting and preserving the sea front of Akko, Appollonia and Ashkelon. Israel proposes that the Mediterranean and European countries will establish a collaborative project for the protection and preservation of the marine cultural heritage.

preservation and protection plans. Some of the plans are being applied now. Actions taken by Israel to rescue the coastal/marine cultural heritage The destruction of cultural assets was brought to the attention of the House of Representatives, and included in the special legislation for the protection of the coastal environment in 2004. Public awareness was raised by articles in various journals, lectures, popular press, radio talks, television shows, and other media. Several national organizations were persuaded to collaborate in solving these problems, among them the prime minister’s office, ministry of education, culture and sports, the ministry of the interior – the committee for the protection of the coastal environment –, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Israel Parks and Nature Preserves Authority, municipalities of Akko, Hertzelia and Ashkelon, The Israel Electric Corporation, and the Israel committee for UNESCO.

Introduction The cultural and natural heritages of the Mediterranean countries are strongly affected by climate change. Presently the coastal and underwater archaeological heritage is rapidly eroding and ancient coastal cities and villages are being destroyed by the rising sea. The ancient cultures have left behind a wealth of ancient remains in the sea and on the coast of Israel. Among them are submerged prehistoric settlements, ancient coastal cities, and remains of shipwrecks, harbours and anchorages. The cultural heritage of Israel reflects an important chapter in the history of humanity, starting with the Neolithic revolution, the first Empires, the foundation stones of the major monotheistic religions and other major historical events.1 The coastal region is sensitive to changes, and disturbances in the environmental system are likely to have destructive effects. Man’s activity in the coastal region (particularly sand quarrying and the construction of marine structures) has resulted in extreme shortages of sand along the coast and rapid erosion. The problem has been exacerbated by the global rise in sea level at a rate of c. 0.2m over the course of the 20th century. Coastal settlements and underwater sites are rapidly damaged by erosion. Ancient sea walls, structures and installations collapse, and in certain places the erosion rate is up to one metre per year. If this process continues, a significant portion of the marine heritage will disappear and archaeological, tourist and economic assets of great value will be lost. Due to the importance of these remains, we are obligated to preserve them and the information hidden within them, for the sake of future generations. Israel is conducting a series of emergency actions to deal with this damage. These activities included legal action, monitoring, risk assessment studies and

Underwater surveys aimed at rescuing and documenting underwater sites were carried out year round. A comprehensive GIS data base was established for the coastal sites. The damage to the ancient coastal sites is constantly monitored by visual observations, photography and measurements. A policy document, as well as a risk assessment study of the coast and the ancient coastal heritage, is being prepared by the prime minister’s office jointly with the ministry for the protection of the environment, the Israel Antiquities Authority and other organizations. Pilot projects for preserving and protecting the sea fronts of ancient Ashkelon, Appollonia and Akko were conducted. Typology of the endangered sites and the causes of destruction The coastal settlements which are at risk are classified according to four categories based on their morphological characteristics (Figs 1-4). The possible risk factors for the antiquities are described in the different regions and at different depths (Figs 5, 6). Methodology Protection and Conservation Works The estimate of the conservation works relies on evaluation of the present condition, the information accumulated so far and on conservation surveys that were performed at the different sites. The estimate is comprised of work that needs to be implemented only once, and maintenance work that has to be conducted annually.

  For references, see select bibliography at the end of this paper.

1

57

SOMA 2009 Salvage Excavations

are being eroded by the waves. The upper parts are being damaged by waves, spray and wind. The city walls along the southern Pisan sea front are based on an unstable foundation and are exposed to storm waves from the southwest. Sections of the city wall have collapsed (Figs 7, 7a).

The goals of such excavations are: to prevent the destruction of the ancient remains; if there is no possibility to save the antiquities, an excavation will be conducted aimed at salvaging the archaeological information; the excavations will facilitate cliff stabilization by different engineering means and vegetation plantings.

The measures required for salvaging the site include: Implementation of conservation and maintenance treatment at problematic sections of the city wall according to the risk and conservation surveys. Ongoing multiyear preventive maintenance: conservation-engineering treatment, filling empty spaces, adding stones, pointing up joints etc. Periodic monitoring of the different sections (panoramic photographs, locating new risks) will also be required.

Underwater Salvage Surveys Underwater salvage surveys will locate, document and salvage antiquities that are exposed on the seabed and are considered to be at risk of destruction. Risk assessment document This paper presents the main endangered marine and coastal settlements. The data is based on a full and comprehensive risk-assessment document which summarizes in detail the conservation works, protection means, salvage excavations and underwater surveys that are required to save the ancient cultural heritage. The document is based on previous long-term surveys and excavations of the whole coast. It includes a detailed GIS mapping of all the marine and coastal archaeological sites, including polygonal marks designating the boundaries of the sites and an evaluation of the scientific and tourist potential and the importance of the sites. The work was performed by expert conservators, marine archaeologists and engineers who surveyed the sites. Detailed risk assessment files were prepared for the sites of Akhziv, Akko, Atlit, Atlit-Yam, Neve-Yam, Dor, Tel Tanninim, Caesarea, Appollonia, Yavne-Yam, Ashdod-Yam, Ashkelon North and Tel Ashkelon. The risk-assessment document summarizes the data from the sites and forms a national document that specifies the risks faced by the various coastal cities, proposes measures to be taken, and quantifies the necessary costs.

Atlit The site is planned as a future national park. Ruins of a Middle Bronze Age settlement and a well-preserved Phoenician harbour were discovered. A well-preserved Crusader fortress (Fig 8) is subject to weathering as a result of waves, spray and wind. North of the fortress there is a Crusader cemetery with dozens of tombstones, some of which are decorated. A cement protective wall that was built several decades ago around the Crusader cemetery was destroyed in several places. The Crusader fortress requires conservation and rehabilitation work, and several sections of the cement wall which protected the Crusader cemetery are to be repaired. Protection work must be performed at the seafront of the site. Underwater rescue surveys are needed in order to locate, document and save the ancient remains that are exposed on the seabed. Tel Dor The site is planned as a future national park. Habitation began in the Middle Bronze Age and continued uninterrupted until the Roman period. South of the site there is a natural anchorage in which numerous shipwrecks were discovered. The southern and western parts of the Tel are undergoing rapid weathering and destruction. The ancient buildings on the southern sea front and a number of sections in the western part require conservation works. Protective measures are needed as well as underwater salvage excavations and surveys.

Ancient coastal settlements at risk in Israel The results of the surveys are presented in brief, including a description of the sites, the principal problems and means to be taken (Figs 5, 6). Akhziv The site was inhabited almost continuously from the Middle Bronze Age until the 20th century and is also a national park. Protection and conservation works are required along a number of sections of the seafront.

Tel Tanninim A coastal Roman Byzantine settlement situated on a kurkar hill on the southern bank of Nahal Tanninim. North of the Tel there are the impressive remains of an Ottoman stone bridge. The kurkar bedrock is being eroded at the western part of the site. At the northern part of the Tel the settlement is subject to weathering by the sea. Protection and conservation measures, salvage excavation, and underwater surveys are needed.

Akko Akko is an historic Mediterranean port city that has been functioning continuously for thousands of years. It is also a World Heritage site. The city was founded during the Bronze Age. The presently visible Othman city is built on the ancient ruins. The city was fortified during the Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader and Ottoman periods. The harbour was built in the Hellenistic period and was used practically uninterrupted to the present. The principal risks to the site include: The lower parts of the city walls

Caesarea The city, currently a national park, was founded in the Hellenistic period and reached its peak in the Roman 58

Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen: Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel period. King Herod built a large harbour at Caesarea that served the Roman Empire along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Remains of the harbour are located on the seabed. In the Roman period numerous public structures, such as a theatre, aqueduct and hippodrome, were built in the city. In the Byzantine period the city was protected by a wall, the Crusader walls are still visible. Principal risks to the site include: Massive coastal erosion (Figs 9, 10) due to the construction of a power plant south of the site, similar to the case of Ashkelon (see below). Measures required for salvaging the site can be seen below as for Ashkelon.

• Erosion and run-off problems accelerate the destruction of the coastal cliff. • There is a significant narrowing of the sandy beach due to the construction of harbour installations south of the site. As a result the waves are directly damaging the archaeological remains. • There is a dire safety problem that stems from landslides, deterioration and collapse of sections of the coastal cliff, parts of buildings and installations. In the absence of protective beach sands, the Tel’s strata are being washed away after the collapse of the sea walls.

Appollonia (Arsuf)

• Shipwrecks and cargoes are exposed on the seabed and are threatened by treasure hunters.

The site includes Roman, Byzantine, Muslim and Crusader settlements and a national park. During the Crusader period a fortress was built, later it was besieged, conquered and destroyed by the Muslims. Principal risks to the site include: Massive destruction of the seafront and a collapse of buildings (as at Ashkelon); shipwrecks and cargos are exposed on the seabed and are threatened by treasure hunting. Measures required for salvaging the site are as those for Ashkelon (below).

Measures required for salvaging the site: • Archaeological salvage excavations of the buildings and the installations on the tell seafront which are in immediate danger of destruction. • Dismantling dangerous buildings that cannot be stabilized.

Yavne-Yam

• Conservation works to preserve buildings and installations at the seafront (Fig. 13): filling empty overhanging spaces, pointing up joints, completing constructions.

The site was settled from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period. West of the settlement are the remains of a natural basin that served in antiquity as the principal anchorage of southern Israel. The principal risks and measures required for salvaging the site are as for Ashkelon (below).

• Stabilizing the slopes by means of terraces, vegetation and nets.

Ashdod-Yam

• Arranging the drainage on the slope and above it.

The site includes a Crusader fortress surrounded by a wall that was excavated and partly restored. Parts of the seawalls have undergone conservation and were restored. Remains of the fortress and the seawalls that were built north of it are being destroyed by the action of the waves. Protective, conservation and restoration measures are required.

• Protecting the seafront by seawalls and boulders and/ or depositing sand. • Follow-up and multi-year monitoring: panoramic photographs and locating new risks when they occur. • Underwater surveys are to be carried out year round to locate, document and salvage the remains of shipwrecks and cargos that are threatened by treasure hunters.

Ashkelon Mayumas (Ashkelon North) Settlement remains from the Byzantine period and a fortified compound are located on the coastal cliff and are currently being destroyed by the sea. Temporary protection of the coast (geo- technique sleeves) has been undertaken recently (Fig 11). Shipwrecks and cargoes are often being exposed on the sea bottom.

Submerged Neolithic settlements at risk Postglacial sea level rise inundated the prehistoric settlements situated near ancient coastlines. Remnants of these settlements are presently lying underwater off the Carmel coast, from Haifa to the Atlit region (Fig 14). The submerged prehistoric settlements were uncovered off the Carmel coast as a result of massive sand quarrying and construction of numerous marine structures along the Israeli coast. The submerged settlements are dated to the Neolithic period, some 9200 to 8000 years ago. This period was a turning point in human socio-economic modes of subsistence: systematic food production and animal and plant domestication first appeared. Permanent settlements required new food production practices, which resulted in a more intensive exploitation of all available resources in the surrounding habitats. This increased human activity in

Tel Ashkelon The fortified city was founded in the Bronze Age. Numerous granite and marble architectural elements are indicative of the magnificence of the city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In the Crusader period the city was protected by a heavy wall and the seawall was reinforced by granite columns taken from ancient buildings. Principal risks to the site: • The collapse and massive destruction of the seawalls (Fig. 12), the buildings and the Tel’s seafront.

59

SOMA 2009 a relatively small area demanded long-term food storage to fill seasonal gaps when food was unavailable. Since no written documents are available from prehistoric times, a multi-disciplinary study is required to extract information from the remaining archaeological evidence. The submerged settlements enable a reconstruction of the material culture and the socio-economic system of the Neolithic inhabitants of the coastal plain. Moreover it was possible to reconstruct the paleoenvironmental conditions and study their impact on coastal habitations in this important period.

vast amounts of plant remains (mainly broken olive stones and pulp) were found together with wooden bowls, mat fragments made of woven reeds and straw, and stone basins. Neve-Yam: Submerged pottery Neolithic Settlement The 6,500-year-old site is located near the shoreline (Fig 14). A cemetery with stone built cist graves was discovered. This is the earliest example of an organized graveyard located separately from the dwelling area. The structures and finds are occasionally exposed on the sea floor and consequently are heavily eroded by the sea (Fig. 17). Ongoing surveys and excavations should be conducted aimed at locating and documenting installations and graves which are exposed on the seabed.

The prehistoric settlements submerged off the Carmel coast belong to two main entities: the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNC), and the Late Ceramic Neolithic (Wadi Rabah culture. In addition to these, meagre remains of the Middle Pottery Neolithic (termed Jericho IX/Lodian culture) were found at the Neve-Yam site.

Conclusions and recommendations In recent years significant damage has been caused to the ancient coastal settlements in and extremely valuable archaeological assets have been lost. Rising sea levels during the 21st century will cause a severe damage to the ancient coastal settlements. Without the implementation of protective and conservation measures, we are liable to lose substantial parts of the ancient coastal settlements within several decades.

Atlit-Yam: Submerged pre–pottery Neolithic C Settlement The Atlit-Yam (AY) PPNC submerged village thrived some 9200-8500 years ago (calibrated). It is located in the north bay of Atlit, submerged at a depth of 8-12m, and is approximately 40,000m2 in area (Fig 14). Excavations have revealed foundations of rectangular stone structures, various round installations, wells (Fig 15), a structure built with sandstone megaliths (Fig.16), anthropomorphic stone steles and tens of hearths with charcoal remains. The tool assemblages consist of stone, bone and flint artefacts, including axes, spearheads, sickle blades and arrowheads. Tens of human skeletons were uncovered buried in flexed positions, in and around the structures. Additional organic remains include animal bones, fish bones and an abundance of charred and waterlogged plant remains (seeds, tree branches and pollen). Floral and faunal remains suggest that the village economy was complex, based on several different food resources acquired through hunting, incipient herding, fishing and farming.

National and regional master-plans for the protection of the coasts should be drafted; the treatment of the ancient coastal settlements must be included within this framework as a matter of high priority. Emergency plans should be drawn up for immediate action in the coastal cities at Akko, Atlit, Appollonia, Yavne-Yam, Ashkelon North, Tel Ashkelon, where the damage is especially severe. Temporary protection and conservation measures should be implemented until permanent solutions are found. Salvage excavations at the seafront of the aforementioned ancient coastal cities must be conducted urgently to salvage the archaeological information. At the same time, a plan including permanent solutions for all of the ancient coastal settlements should be prepared. Underwater salvage surveys should be performed year round in the vicinity of the ancient coastal cities. Action must be taken to ensure that the matter becomes part of the public and government agenda and given the right priority. A national budgetary framework must be created for the short- and long-term treatment of the destruction of the ancient coastal settlements. The ancient coastal settlements must be granted the preference they deserve in the national order of priorities for financing the treatment of the beaches. Contractors should be required to bear the long-term responsibility for either direct or indirect damages likely to be caused as a result of building structures and installations on or close to ancient coastal settlements. This should be specifically stipulated in the building permits. Some of the income of the beaches and national parks should be allocated to the preservation of the ancient coastal cities. Research institutions from Israel and abroad should be encouraged to conduct archaeological salvage excavations in highly endangered coastal sites. The risk survey indicate

The PN Wadi Rabah sites A remarkable abundance and diversity of Pottery Neolithic remains were revealed in a narrow almost continuous submerged belt parallel to the Carmel coast. This 15kmlong stretch lies just seaward of the present shoreline, and is about 200m wide. The five sites now situated at water depths of 1 to 5m, are from north to south: Kfar Samir, Kfar Galim, Tel Hreiz, Megadim and Neve-Yam (Fig. 14). In these sites, stone and wood built structures were found, as well as many stone, bone and flint artefacts, and an abundance of pottery items. Also found were stone-built graves containing human skeletons (at the Neve-Yam site), various types of installations and pits, some containing charred and waterlogged plant remains, and animal bones. The submerged site of Kfar Samir is located south of Haifa, 0.5 to 5m below present-day sea level (Fig.14). Excavations and surveys at the site have revealed paved floors, installations used for olive-oil extraction, and several wells constructed by alternating layers of wooden branches and stones Additionally, round pits containing

60

Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen: Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel that a budget of c. 30 million Euros is needed to ensure the protection and preservation of the coastal sites of Israel for the coming decades, and an additional million Euros a year is needed for monitoring, surveying and maintenance.

Galili, E. and Sharvit, J. (1998). ‘Ancient coastal installations and the tectonic stability of the Israeli coast in historical times’, in: Stewart I.S. and Vita-Finzi, C. eds. Coastal Tectonics, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 146: 147-163. Galili, E. and Sharvit, J. (2000). ‘Underwater Archaeological Heritage of Israel: Nature, Policy and Management of Endangered Resource’, in: Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongreß für Unterwasserarchäologie (IKUWA 99’), 18-21 Februar 1999, in Sassnitz auf Rügen, 555-561. Galili, E., Raban, A. and Sharvit, J. (2002). ‘Forty Years of Marine Archaeology in Israel’, in: H. Tzalas, ed. Tropis VII, Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity”, Greece, Pylos 1999, 927-961. Galili, E. (1999). ‘Marine Archaeology’. Coastal waters of Israel, Policy document, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Planning Administration, the Committee for coastal waters (Hebrew). Galili, E. (2006). ‘Risk Assessment Survey for the Ancient Coastal settlements of Israel’, 2006, Policy Document submitted to the Prime Minister Office (Hebrew). Galili, E., Rosen, B., Stern, E. J., Finkielsztejn, G., Kool, R., Bahat-Zilberstein, N., Sharvit, Y., Kahanov, Y., Friedman, Z., Zviely, D. (2007). ‘New insights on Maritime Akko revealed by Underwater and Coastal Archaeological Research’, Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Israel Association for Marine Research, Haifa. (http://research.haifa.ac.il/~y. mart/israelaquatic/booklet_2007.pdf). Galili, E. and Rosen, B. (2008). ‘Akko harbor: new finds revealed while deepening the port’, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in The Holy Land, vol. 5, 1558-1561. Galili, E. and Rosen, B. (2008). ‘Marine archaeology in Israel-recent discoveries’, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in The Holy Land, vol. 5, 1925-1934.

Finally, Israel proposes that the Mediterranean and European countries will establish a collaborative project for the protection and preservation of maritime cultural heritage. The project will include: Preparing a riskassessment Atlas of the endangered marine cultural heritage along the Mediterranean coasts. It will include a division of the various coasts according to degrees of risks in different coastal segments, categories of risks, priorities for preservation and protection and preservation techniques; establishing budgetary and funding for short and long terms; planning pilot projects in the Mediterranean countries according to priorities, including their monitoring. Acknowledgments We wish to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority, The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, architects Ram Shoef and Sharon Ben-Yehuda for the graphics, and Josef Galili for the underwater photography. Selected Bibliography Galili, E. and Nir, Y. (1993). ‘The Submerged Pre-Pottery Neolithic water well of Atlit-Yam, northern Israel, and its palaeoenvironmental implications’, The Holocene 3: 265-270. Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M., Hershkovitz, I., Gopher, A., Kislev, M., Lernau, O., Kolska Horowitz, L. and Lernau, H. (1993). Atlit-Yam: ‘A Prehistoric Site on the Sea Floor off the Israeli Coast’. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133-156. Galili, E., Stanley, D.J., Sharvit, J. and Weinstein-Evron, M. (1997). ‘Evidence for Earliest Olive-Oil Production in Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel’, Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 1141-1150.

61

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1. A coastal site Type 1: An ancient tell exposed to sea erosion

Fig. 2. A coastal site Type 2: A coastal city with a seawall founded on bedrock

Fig. 3. A coastal site Type 3: An ancient tell founded on elevated bedrock

Fig. 4. A coastal site Type 4: A prehistoric site inundated by the sea 62

Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen: Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel

Fig. 5. A section of a typical beach

Fig. 7. The southern seawall in 1925 and after recent protection/ preservation works (left)

Fig. 6. A map demonstrating the coastal and submerged endangered settlements along the Israeli coast: White Circlec: Type 1 site: ancient coastal tell being eroded by the sea, massive destruction and the collapse of entire parts of the site; Square: Type 2 site: ancient coastal city, with a sea wall founded on a bedrock foundation – the city walls are damaged by the action of the waves; Pentagon: Type 3 site: ancient coastal tell founded on a raised bedrock surface; Triangle: Type 4 site: submerged prehistoric site inundated by the sea

Fig. 7a: General view of Akko southern seawalls 63

SOMA 2009

Fig. 8. Atlit Crusader fortress

Fig. 9. Caesarea, coastal erosion

Fig. 10. Caesarea, coastal erosion and distruction of the Crusader city wall

Fig. 11. Ashkelon north site, temporarily protected by installing geo-technique sleeves filled with sand

Fig. 12. Ashkelon seawall destruction

Fig. 13. Recent conservation works to sea wall

64

Ehud Galili and Baruck Rosen: Ancient Underwater and Coastal Settlements of Israel

Fig. 14. A map of the submerged Neolithic settlements off the Carmel coast

Fig. 15. Neolithic well

65

SOMA 2009

Fig. 16. Megalithic ritual structure

Fig. 17. Foundations of rectangular dwellings being eroded in the submerged Neolithic settlement of Neve Yam.

66

Some Wineries of the Lykaonia and Isauria Regions Erdoğan Aslan, Osman Doğanay and Güngör Karauğuz Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Science and Letters, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Department of History, Faculty of Science and Letters, Kırklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Science and Letters, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey as to be served to the Gods in a reverential manner:4 Offer bread, beer, wine and other offering in the temple to [the God]5 and Beer and wine shall not be taken from the Gods’ doorstep.6

In this study, six winery samples representing an indispensable part of wine production in Lykaonia and Isauria Region are presented and the functions of these wineries dispersed to various parts of the region are discussed. In addition a brief history of wine production in Anatolia is mentioned and the prominence of wine for the Hittites is emphasized. As the dating of wineries by rock inscriptions is very important, and as studies show that the typologies of wineries is not the main determining factor, the political history of the city and other remnants that can function as dating criteria need to be taken into account. In this context, the inscribed rock tombs, coins and ceramic fragments observed around the studied wineries indicate that the wineries mentioned were used from the 1st to 4th centuries AD.

In the Hittite world, palhi-, aššuzeri-, zalhai-, išgaruh-, išpantuzzi-, tapišana-, hanešša-, HAB.HAB and ŠU.NAG. NAG7 can be mentioned among the general vessels wine is kept in. A few of the Maşathöyük letters mention wine which is to be sent to the king.8 Cuneiform texts do not provide detailed information about how wine is produced, but the Telipinu Legend reveals: Just as grapes are kept for wine, you – Telipinu – shall also keep goodness in your heart and soul.9 Grapes and wine feature in many Hittite mythological texts, i.e. Tešim [the god] is bountiful as honey [and] grapes.10 In the Illuianka legend, in the quarrel between the storm god and Illuianka, Illuianka wins and to celebrate his victory he prepares palhi-cups full of wine.11

Historical context Although it is not known when and by whom it was first produced, wine in some form is known to have been consumed since Neolithic times. It is understood that in the Early Bronze Age the production of wine was carried out by a press carved into the south corner of the barrow unearthed during excavations at Tel-Taanek in Palestine. In the light of Hittite cuneiform documents it is understood that the word wiiana and the expression GIŠGEŠTIN from a Sumerian ideogram both meant ‘grape’ and ‘wine’ in the Hittite world.

In Hittite contracts, the parties who violate agreements are threatened with the loss of their vineyards.12 A vineyard of 1 IKU (approximately 3600m2) was worth 1 MANA (approx 500g silver of),13 and burning a vineyard,14 cutting it without permission,15 and other crimes16 were forbidden by law and punishments were severe.17 In ancient Greek culture, wine taking formed the second part of a dinner and the word symposion used to mean a space set aside for drinking. This tradition spread to the Roman world and was called commisatio.18 Besides being a pleasure in its own right, drink was an indispensable offering in libation rituals for some gods.

As can be deduced from Hittite cuneiform texts, wine which is known to be produced from fresh grapes, can also be produced from dry grape (GIŠGEŠTIN HÁD. DU.A1). Wine was also a commercial product for Hittite communities. We know that the price of 1 PA (almost 50 litres) was determined as ½ šeqel (approximately 4gr).

Just as in the Hittite world, Greek culture made festivals of wine production.19 At these festivals grapes picked in

The main varieties of wine in Hittite society were: GEŠTIN GIBIL (fresh wine), GEŠTIN EMSÚ (sour wine), GEŠTIN DÙG.GA (filtered sweet wine), GEŠTIN KU7 (sweet wine), GEŠTIN.LÀL (honey wine), GEŠTIN LIBIR.RA (mellow wine), GEŠTIN SA5 (red wine), GEŠTIN.KAS (wine mixed with beer), GEŠTIN parkui(pure wine), and GEŠTIN.NAG (smooth wine).

 KBo XV 25 Vs. 1-4; KUB VI 45, 46 I 8, IV 7, 22, 27, 32, 51; Neu 1970, 12-13, 18-19. 5   KUB XIII 4 I 60. 6   KUB XIII 4 II 5-6. 7  Coşkun 1969, 6, 18; Coşkun 1979, 46, 52,60-61, 64, 86, 92. 8  Alp 1991, 124-126; 194-175; 180, 181. 9   Karauğuz 2001: 90, §13 (A II 19-21). 10   Karauğuz 2001: 123, §14 (Ay.56-59). 11   Karauğuz 2001: 71, §3-5 (A I 5-18). 12   Karauğuz 2002: 147-148, §21 (A IV 31-46). 13   Imparati 1964: II 185. 14   Imparati 1964: II 105. 15   Imparati 1964: II 104, 113. 16   Imparati 1964: II 108. 17   Imparati 1964: II 101. 18   Brown 1969: 54-62. 19  Yılmaz 1994: 357 vd. 4

Grapes and wine were central elements of Hittite religion and culture.2 It is known that there were even vintage festivals for the Protector god of Karahna City3 and wine

  Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (KUB) XVII 12 III 10-12.   Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi (KBo) II 9 I 22-24; KBo V 2 I; KBo X 34 I; KUB XXIX I Rs. IV.: KUB IX 31 I 16. 3   KUB XXXVIII 12 Öy. I 23. 1 2

67

SOMA 2009 Fulcra hole: 0.20 x 0.20m Samples like this are known to be common in Dağlık Kilikya (Cilicia Tracheia).27 A2-Winery with square press vessel and collection hole (a: Fasıllar, b: Daran Kızılçukur, c: Yukarı İrnebol).

baskets are washed and emptied into a wooden or stone trough.20 Wine production and wineries The easiest and most practical way of preparing grape mass was by treading, the resultant liquid draining off. The residue was then scooped into felt sacks for pressing.21 There were 6 main types of press in the Greco-Latin world:22 1) arm and pulley (Cato press); 2) arm and stone weight (Heron press); 3) arm and screw (Plinius press) types (a) screw fixed to ground and (b) stone weight screw; 4) screw; 5) loaded; 6) fixed wedge.

a) Fasıllar Location: Konya-Beyşehir-Seydişehir highway at Fasıllar village (fig. 3) Press vessel: 2.72 x 2.51m Collection hole: 2.10 x 0.62m Fulcra hole: 0.63 x 0.20m

The samples in our study are from the second type – arm and stone press (Heron press) – and screw presses. Arm and stone weighted presses23 in their simplest form are composed of square or round pressing vessel and a collection hole. The pressing process is achieved with a plank (prelum), one of whose ends enters into the hole in the wall and weights (litus) tied to the plank force the plank downwards. Although the elements that make up the press can have various sizes and shapes, the functioning of the system is the same in all cases. In very large presses with high production capacity some mechanical mechanisms were also used.

b) Daran Kızılçukur: Among the samples we included in this group, the Daran Kızılçukur (‘Red Hole’) press is different from the others in that it has a “T” shaped fulcra hole. Location: Daran Kızılçukur village, Karaman-Sarıveliler (fig. 4; fig. 5) Press vessel: 2.38 x 2.90m Collection hole: 0.70 x 0.80m Fulcra hole: 0.60 x 0.25m c) Yukarı İrnebol=Eirenepolis Location: Çatalbadem Village, Ermenek, Karaman (fig. 6-7; fig. 8) Press vessel: 2 x 2m Collection hole: 0.60 x 0.50m Fulcra hole: 0.20 x 0.16m

In the functioning of the one-screw press24 mentioned in this paper, the screw in the centre goes trough a fixed arbores and prelum that make up a case around the screw. With the turning of the turning arm, the press moves downwards and the pressing occurs.

A3-Winery with semi-circle press vessel and one round collection hole (Adiller Diş Alanı). Location. Adiller Village Diş Alanı, Sarıveliler, Karaman (fig. 9; fig. 10) Press vessel: 1.80 x 1.38m Collection hole: 0.35 x 0.35m Fulcra hole: 0.20 x 0.20m

Winery Samples in the Lykaonia and İsauria Region The Lykaonia and İsauria region wineries examined accord with only one of the typologies25 made in similar studies in various regions.26 To determine the typology of the rockcarved wineries in the region we did not take into account certain differences, such as the variation in the location of collection holes and the shapes of fulcra sinks. However we thought it would be appropriate to make our typology according to the press vessel, collection sinks and press system (fig. 16) found and recorded in the following short catalogue;

A4-Winery with semi-circular press vessel and two round collection holes (Ermenek Castle). Location: Karaman-Ermenek Kalesi Akça Mesçit Mahallesi (fig. 11, 12) Press vessel: 2.33 x 1.35m Collection hole: 0.80 x 0.50m Fulcra hole: 0.15 x 0.15m B- Screw press

A-Arm and stone weighted presses A1-Square press vessel and round collection pool/basin press Balkayalar

B1-One screw portable press (Sarayönü).

Location: Balkayalar region, 35k along the KonyaBeyşehir highway (fig. 1; fig. 2) Press vessel: 4 x 3m Collection hole: 2.20 x 0.80m

Location: Next to the Belediye Asfalt Şantiyesi Sarayönü, Konya (fig. 13-15) Press Bed: 0.61 x 0.05m Size: 1.70 x 0.86 x 0.40m

  Diler 1993: 505 vd.   Doğer 2004: 82-85. 22   Bkz. Hellenkemper-Hild 1986: 32 vd. 23   Diler 1993: 508. 24   Frankel 1999: 103 vd.; Bulut 2005: 198 vd. 25   Diler 1993: 508. 26   Diler 1993: 508. 20 21

  Diler 1993: 509.

27

68

Erdoğan Aslan, Osman Doğanay and Güngör Karauğuz: Some Wineries of the Lykaonia and Isauria Regions Conclusions

Abbreviations

As shown by the above examples, the rock presses have deeper vessels and flat bottoms; the liquid collection holes are at higher levels in rock vessels. The small collection holes indicate that the wineries mentioned here were of limited capacity. Generally, it is rather difficult to determine whether these wineries were for olive oil or wine production.28 However, as the samples in this study have no orbis or trapetum, indispensable features of olive oil workshops, and as the climate and geographical conditions in the region are not suitable for olive growing, the deep vessels of various forms carved from the rocks, and relatively common in the region, can be said to have been used for wine production. Features such as deep press vessels, fulcra beds and collection sinks all indicate grape wineries where the grape residue was removed for pressing.

KBo: Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, Leipzig/Berlin. KUB: Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Berlin.

Bibliography Bulut, S. 2005. ‘Likya-Pamfilya-Pisidya Sınır Bölgesinden Sıradışı İki Zeytinyağı İşliği’, Adayla VIII, 191211. Brown, J.P. 1969. The Mediterranean Vocabulary of Wine Coşkun, Y. 1969. ‘Boğazköy Metinlerinde Geçen Başlıca Libasyon Kapları’, DTCFD, XXVII/3-4, 1-61. Coşkun, Y. 1979. Boğazköy Metinlerinde Geçen Bazı Seçme Kap İsimleri, Ankara. Diler, A. 1993. ‘Akdeniz Bölgesi Antik Çağ Zeytin ve Şarap İşlikleri’, AST XII, 505-520, Ankara. Diler, A. 1994. ‘Akdeniz Bölgesi Antik Çağ Zeytin ve Üzüm Presleri-1993’, AST XIII, 441-457, Ankara. Doğer, E. 2004. Antik Çağda Bağ ve Şarap, İstanbul. Frankel, R. 1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean Countries. Hellenkemper, H. and Hild, F. 1986. Neue Forschungen in Kilikien Karauğuz, G. 2001. Hitit Mitolojisi, Konya. Karauğuz, G. 2002. Boğazköy ve Ugarit Çivi Yazılı Belgelerine Göre Hitit Devletinin Siyasi Antlaşma Metinleri, Konya. Neu, E. 1970. Ein althethitisches Gewitterritual, (StBoT 12), Wiesbaden. Preaux, C. 1947. Les grecs en Egypte, d’apres les archives de Zenon, 7me Serie, No.78. Yılmaz, M. 1994. ‘Mezar Steli Betimlemelerine Göre İsaura Bölgesinde Bağcılık ve Bağbozumu Şenlikleri’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4.

It is known that grapes pressed in sunlight in open areas are known to ferment faster.29 However evidence at all of our samples in this study makes us think that the wineries were covered because of the harsh climatic conditions. Dating of wineries is problematic. Typology (fig. 16) is not necessarily the determining factor when dating, and the political history of city and other ruins and contextual finds around the winery have to be used as criteria for dating.30 As mentioned above, the wineries mentioned in this study, the local inscribed rock tombs, coins and ceramic remains indicate that the wineries here were in use from the 1st to the 4th centuries AD.

  Bulut 2005: 197 vd.   Bulut 2005: 19318 ; Diler 1994: 446. 30   Bulut 2005: 198vd.; Diler 1994: 510. 28 29

Fig. 1: Konya-Balkayalar winery

69

SOMA 2009

A

A

Plan

A-AKesiti

Fig. 2: Konya-Balkayalar, winery plan and intersection

A

A -A K e s iti A

0

P la n

1 m

Þ a ra p Ýþlið i

Fig. 3: Konya-Beyşehir-Fasıllar, winery plan and intersection

Fig. 4: Daran Kızılçukur, winery

70

Erdoğan Aslan, Osman Doğanay and Güngör Karauğuz: Some Wineries of the Lykaonia and Isauria Regions A

A-AKesiti Plan

A

Fig. 5: Daran Kızılçukur, winery plan and intersection

Fig. 6-7: Ermenek Yukarı İrnebol, winery

71

SOMA 2009

Fig. 8: Ermenek-Yukarı İrnebol, winery plan and intersection

Fig. 9: Adiller Diş Alanı, winery

A

0

A-A Kesiti

1m

Adiller Þarap Ýþliði A

Fig. 10: Adiller Diş Alanı, winery plan and intersection 72

Erdoğan Aslan, Osman Doğanay and Güngör Karauğuz: Some Wineries of the Lykaonia and Isauria Regions

Fig. 11: Ermenek Castle, winery

A

A

A-A Kesiti 0

Plan

1m

Ermenek Kalesi Þarap Ýþliði

Fig. 12: Adiller Diş Alanı, winery plan and intersection

Fig. 13-14: Konya Sarayönü, winery 73

BB

Plan Plan SOMA 2009

B

A-A A-AKesiti Kesiti A

A

B

Plan 0

0

B-B Kesiti B-B Kesiti

1m 1m

Sarayönü Belediye þantiyesi Sarayönü Belediye þantiyesi VidalýPres VidalýPres

Fig. 15: Konya Sarayönü, winery plan and intersection

A-A Kesiti

0

B-B Kesiti

1m

Sarayönü Belediye þantiyesi VidalýPres

Fig. 16: The grouping of the wineries in Lykaonia and İsauria Region (A-Press Armed and Stone Weighted (Heron Press) A1-Winery square press vessel and round collection pool, A2-Winery with square press vessel and square collection sink, A3-Winery with semi-circle press vessel and one round collection sink, A4-Winery with semi-circle press vessel and two round collection sinks, B-Screwed Press, B1- One screw portable press)

74

Three Items of Hellenistic Glassware from the Karaman Museum Ertekin M. Doksanaltı Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey One of the more significant groups of artefacts in the Karaman museum collection is the glassware dated from the Hellenistic to the Byzantium periods.1 The glassware is of sufficient quality to allow us to make some remarkable revaluation of glass production and trade, not only from the immediate region but also from Anatolia more generally. The artefacts, mostly brought to the museum from the ancient settlements of Karaman and its environs, were produced using the techniques and skills of core-forming, blowing and mould-blowing; of the 168 objects the three items from the Hellenistic period especially stand out with their formal and stylistic characteristics and are described here.

The three Hellenistic glassware items in the Karaman museum were produced mainly using the core-forming method and date to this period from their form and production characteristics (figure 1). Used since the first appearance of glass in the Bronze Age, the core-forming technique is one of the oldest methods in glassware or glass object production (Barag 1985, 36, 42, no.7). It is thought that the Egyptians started to use this technique around 2500 BC (Grossmann 2002, 7). Samples found in some centres of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and dated to Bronze Age, show that this method had been used from early times (Barag 1985, 36). Wares produced by core-forming have been found in various centres in the Mediterranean and dating from the 6th century BC to the 1st century AD (Riemenschneider 1989, 160- 61). During the Roman Empire period this method was used for making glass beads.

According to the museum’s records these three Hellenistic items were brought to the Karaman museum at the end of the 1970s by Mehmet Ertaş and the find place was said to be Adıyaman. The same person also brought other artefacts with an Adıyaman origin, especially some terracotta impression seals. Stylistic and iconographic researches on the seals, and the historical data, show that they were from Doliche (Doksanaltı and Sağlan 2010, forthcoming). This increases the possibility that these three glassware items were from one of the ancient settlements around Adıyaman.

Wares produced using this technique are generally small and used as storage boxes for cosmetics, perfumes and drugs (Grossmann 2002, 7). In the early second millennium BC, and during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, this technique was much preferred for the production of alabastron, amphoriskos, oinochoe and aryballos. In this production method, a core-model of clay or plaster is used as a mould and held with a metal rod. The core at the tip of the rod can be made into glass ware or a glass object by two processes: either through covering the core with hot, paste-like glass strings, or by dipping the core into hot liquid glass in a vessel.

Glass became an essential part of both private and daily life from as soon as it came into use. As understood from the historical resources and archaeological data, glass was invented at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, in the Bronze Age (Harden 1968, 46; 1972, 320; Barag 1970, 133; 1985, 35, 111, nr. 175). The Roman writer Pliny (Plin. NH., XXXVI. 64, 26) explained that glass had been invented, accidentally, as a fragile layer appearing on a coal from a campfire lit by Syrian tradesmen. However recent researches, as might be expected, show that ancient glass was developed only after much painstaking research and development (Lierke 1998, 16).

In the second phase, the half-melted glass around the rod is rolled over a hard surface to polish the outer surface, making the outer surface slick and smooth, and producing the required thickness. The core would usually be covered with a thin cloth or leather to also make the inner surface of the item smooth.

From the Bronze Age, different glass production methods have evolved for the manufacture of glassware and other glass objects (Harden 1968, 49-50; Lightfoot and Arslan 1992, 10-12). Glass production methods differ according to the period or the form of the ware. These glass production methods were used successively or simultaneously in different periods.

For the third phase, the main body of the item, finalized around the core, would be heated again and any additional features – handles, bases, etc. – would be attached to the pot. Finally the item would be left to cool and the rod removed. The core inside the pot would disintegrate and be removed. The inner surface could then be cleaned and the entire artefact smoothed. Items produced using the core-forming technique might have no decoration and just a single colour. However most of the pots produced by wrapping glass strings around the core have a polychrome effect. This colourful decoration

  The present authors’ catalogue of archaeological objects in the Karaman Museum was produced with the permission of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. We sincerely thank the museum staff and manager, Nurettin Özkan, who helped us with great patience during this study 1

75

SOMA 2009 is characteristic of items created by the core-forming, glass string technique.

Dating: The pot, having Hellenistic period formal characteristics (Harden 1968, 54, 60- 61, fig. 3) such as the narrow cylindrical body and the long neck, is dated to the 2nd or 1st centuries BC.

Decoration is undertaken by covering half-melted glass strings around the core during production. The basic method of application of this decoration is to apply the molten glass around the core spirally or in single circles. After covering the core with glass strings on the surface, they would usually be pulled or combed up and down using a sharp, comb-like tool, thus creating zigzag, fringe, feather or garland shapes. The circles covering the item could also be left unaltered and intact and the outer surface would then have a composition of alternative colours. After this, the item would be rolled over a flat surface and smoothed.

No 3. Amphoriskos (figures 8-10) Museum Inventory Number: 2180 Width: 4.6cm Height: 11.9cm Type: Harden 1981, Amphoriskos Form 7B Dark translucent opaque blue body; decoration of opaque yellow, blue and red trail; translucent dark opaque blue thickened rim; dark blue strap handles. The rim disk is wide and distinctively thickened. The upper part of the rim is clear-cut. The long cylindrical neck slightly widens downwards. The long, oval and narrow body narrows down the shoulder. The spherical base is in the shape of a knob. Vertical strap handles are attached below the rim to the shoulders.

Catalogue No 1. Alabastron (figures 2-4) Museum Inventory Number: 1841 Width: 2.5cm Height: 10.5cm Type: Harden 1981, Alabastron Form 7

Dating: Having the Hellenistic period formal characteristics (Harden 1968, 54, 60- 61, fig. 3) such as the long and narrowing body and the long neck, is dated to the 2nd or 1st centuries BC.

Dark translucent opaque blue body; decoration of opaque green and white trail; translucent dark opaque blue rimdisk; dark blue strap handles. The bottom and one of the handles of the pot are missing. There are some blisters on the surface. The handles and the rim-disk were attached afterwards. The rim is flat and expands outwards. It has a long cylindrical neck and a cylindrical body. The bottom is rounded. Vertical strap handles are attached from the middle of the neck to the shoulder.

Bibliography Barag, Dan P. 1970. ‘Mesopotamian Core-Formend Glass Vessels (1500-500 B.C)’, Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, The Corning Museum of Glass, Monograph 3, Corning. Barag, Dan P. 1985. Catalogue of Westwrn Asiatic Glass in the British Museum. Vol. 1, London/Jerusalem. Doksanaltı, E and Sağlan, S. 2010. ‘A Group of Impression Seals from Karaman Museum’, Anatolia 2010 (forthcoming). Grossmann, R.A. 2002. Ancient Glass: a Guide to the Yale Collection, New Haven. Harden, D.B. 1968. ‘Ancient Glass, I: Pre-Roman’, The Archaeological Journal, vol. CXXV, 46- 72. Harden, D.B. 1972. ‘Ancient Glass, II: Roman’, The Archaeological Journal, vol. CXXVI, 44-77.

Dating: Bearing the Hellenistic period formal characteristics (Harden 1968, 54, 60-61, fig. 3) such as the narrow cylindrical body, the flat rim considerably expanding outwards and the distinct long neck, this pot is dated to the 2nd or 1st centuries BC. No 2. Alabastron (figures 5-7) Museum Inventory Number: 2181 Width: 2.4cm Height: 10cm Type: Harden 1981, Alabastron Form 7

Harden, D.B. 1981. Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum, Vol 1: Core-and rod-formed Vessel and Pendants and Mycenaean Glass Objects, London. Lierke, R. 1998. Antike Glasstöferai. Lightfoot, C.S. and Arslan, M. 1992. Ancient Glass of Asia Minor: the Yüksel Erimtan Collection, Ankara. Riemenschneider, U. 1989. Antike Gläser im Museum Altenessen, Boreas Supp. 12, Münster.

Dark translucent opaque blue body; decoration of opaque yellow, blue and red trail; translucent dark opaque blue thickened rim; dark blue strap handles. There are small blisters on the whole surface. The handles and the rim disk were attached afterwards. The rim is cylindrical and thickened. The upper part of the rim is clear-cut. The rim is distinctively separated from the thinner neck. It has a cylindrical neck slightly widening downwards and a cylindrical body. The bottom is rounded. Vertical strap handles are attached from the beginning of the neck to the shoulder.

76

Ertekin M. Doksanaltı: Three Items of Hellenistic Glassware from the Karaman Museum

Fig. 1

Fig.2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 77

SOMA 2009

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7 78

Ertekin M. Doksanaltı: Three Items of Hellenistic Glassware from the Karaman Museum

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

79

80

Attic Imports to Anatolia: The Construction of a Reference Framework Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello Università di Catania, Centro di Ceramografia Greca The continuous increase in Attic pottery from Turkey, compared with Beazley’s lists, necessitates the construction of a framework to which the post-Beazley acquisitions can be ascribed; then the cataloguing of the new vases and attributions to Attic painters can be performed.

the concept of ‘Route Unit’ (‘Unità di rotta’) has been defined, a concept that, on one hand fills the eventual lack of evidence and on the other permits the insertion of new data in a narrow – but at the same time flexible – ‘grid’, in which the producing town (Athens) and the markets of destination (the entire Mediterranean sea) are divided into thirteen areas, further subdivided into sub-areas, on the basis of ancient trading routes. This system permits the insertion of new data, offering a physiological growth of the reference frame, without excessive increases or disorientations.

This methodology, already applied to the imports to Magna Graecia (Giudice 1992, 203-8), to Sicily (Giudice 1990, 147-50), to Cyprus (Giudice et al., forthcoming), to the Greek poleis of Gela (Giudice and Panvini 2003) and Kamarina (Giudice, forthcoming), has proved to be extremely useful in the reconstruction of the distributive trend, from the beginning of Attic production until the end of the fourth century.

Anatolia is subdivided into two areas and various subareas. In particular, the first area (western and central Anatolia) comprises the islands and coast of western Anatolia, interior Anatolia and Persia, while the second area (southern Anatolia) is subdivided into Lydia and Pamphylia, Cilicia and Cyprus, very closely connected to Anatolia. In all these areas, Attic pottery is attested, and the new acquisitions increase Beazley’s data. Only the evidence from the northern coast is still lacking, but it is hoped that new publications will fill the gap.

In this way, the cataloguing of vases uncovered and/or published after 1971 (the year of publication of Beazley’s Paralipomena) can be classified within the framework that can be drawn from the attributions of the Oxonian scholar, in order to specify the chronology, the painters, the shapes and the subjects chosen by Anatolian customers. We intend here to re-examine the Attic pottery uncovered and/or published after 1971. For these reasons, it seems opportune to present the reference framework of Attic imports to Anatolia, basing ourselves on Beazley’s lists, from Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (1956, hereafter ‘ABV’), to Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (1963, hereafter ‘ARV2’), to the above-mentioned Paralipomena (1971, hereafter ‘Para’).

In the three centuries in which it is attested in Anatolia (Fig. 2) and in the nearby Aegean islands, Attic pottery, according to Beazley’s lists, is concentred almost exclusively at four sites: Elaious, in the Thracian Chersonesus, Smyrne, on the western coast, Samos, and Xanthos on the southern coast. Many vases are listed without a precise provenance, as coming generically from Turkey or Asia Minor. Few vases are from other centres, such as Troia, Hanai Tepe, Larisa, Myrina, Kyme, Ephesos, Mylasa, Sardis, Gordion, Lesbos, Chios, Kalymnos, Aspendos, Patara, Varsak, Budrum and Tarsos.

The reference framework that we propose here could be a guide for further increases (Fig. 1). The peculiar position of Anatolia in the Mediterranean will, in the end, clarify the role of the peninsula in the great routes of Attic figured pottery. In a recent congress held in Milan (Giudice and Giudice 2008), in which the problem of the main routes of Attic figured pottery, exported both to the East and the West was dealt with, we traced, on one hand, the routes towards the western regions (Magna Graecia, Sicily, Etruria, north-western and central Europe) and, on the other hand, towards the eastern regions and the Black Sea, towards Africa, eastern Greece and Near- and Middle-East.

In 600-575 B.C. Attic figured pottery is attested in Smyrne, Samos, Xanthos, and Sardis. In the second quarter of the 6th century, there are vases from Smyrne, Samos and from the necropolis of Gordion (the vases that give the name to the Gordion cups). In the subsequent quarter the cities with more imports are again Xanthos and Samos (seven vases each), followed by Smyrne (six vases), Elaious (four), Sardis and Antissa (Lesbos).

Leaving out the distribution of Attic pottery in the western regions, we will focus on the eastern ones. As for historical-commercial studies, our team has elaborated a model according to which it is possible to organise data on the diffusion of Attic figured pottery in the Mediterranean (Giudice 1993, 181-96). Focusing attention on the commercial context rather than on the single find,

In the last quarter of the 6th century, Xanthos becomes the main centre of attraction for Attic pottery, followed by Samos and Elaious. In this period, Attic pottery in Smyrne seems to be less attested than in the past. Two vases come from Troy and one each, respectively, from Antissa (Lesbos) and Kofiná (Chios).

81

SOMA 2009 In the first quarter of the 5th century, Smyrne, with fourteen vases, definitely prevails, followed by Elaious (eleven), Xanthos (ten), Samos (four), Myrina, Larisa, Patara (two attestations for each town) and Sardis.

lists, open to Attic imports from the first quarter of the sixth century to the end of the fourth (Fig. 3). The imports of Attic pottery appear high in the last quarter of the century. The highest quantity is registered, however, in the first quarter of the fifth century, and then begins to decrease gradually in the second quarter, and further in the third quarter of the fifth century, reaching the minimum in the last quarter of the century. The imports begin to grow again in the fourth century B.C.: this is not surprising, given the importance acquired by the African route and by Alexandria in particular in this century.

In 475-450 B.C. Xanthos seems to be the pre-eminent market (six vases). Vases are attested also at Elaious (three), Samos (two), and Ephesos (two). At Smyrne there is a decrease, with only one attestation, and a vase is attested also in Mytilene, Myrina, Aspendos, Tarsos, and Troas. In the following quarter, the sixth vases of certain provenance come from Hanai Tepe, Troas, Lesbos, Samos and Xanthos. In the last quarter, the only vases known come from Troy.

At the beginning of the 6th century, Anatolia imports a good number of Attic vases choosing the shapes with a certain variety, still without a precise predilection. Kylikes, lekanides and amphorae are the most attested shapes, but two column-craters (one of them is perhaps a deinos), a Deianeira-lekythos, an olpe, a hydria and a lebes gamikos – the only attested in Anatolia – are also present.

In the first quarter of the 4th century, the principal centres of import of Attic pottery of the past are not attested: the only vase with a certain provenance comes from Kalymnos In 375-350 B.C., Attic vases are attested at Smyrne, Kalymnos, Troas, Myrina, perhaps Kyme,1 Mylasa, Varsak and Budrum. The other vases of the 4th century are of uncertain provenance.

In the second quarter of the 6th century, the imports of Attic pottery decrease, and there is a clear predilection for the kylikes, followed by a single specimen of skyphos. In 550-525 B.C., although the variety of shapes increases, the market continues to prefer the kylikes, followed by a scanty attestation on amphorae, lekythoi and skyphoi and by the appearance of plates and lids of lekanides. There is also a column-crater and a deinos-stand, and the oinochoe appears for the first time.

From Attica there were four main routes of distribution towards South and East. The first route went from Attica towards the West, via the Cyclades, the circumnavigation of the Peloponnese, Kerkyra, Iapygia; the second towards Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, with a focal point on the island of Thasos, an important centre of purchase and transit of Attic pottery in the route towards the Black Sea.

At the end of the 6th century, the lekythos supplants the pre-eminence of kylikes and amphorae; there are also miniaturist skyphoi and lekanides and hydriai, whereas there are single specimens of column- and calyx-craters, olpe and stemless cup. The Panathenaic amphora appears for the first time.

Moreover, it is possible to follow a route from Athens to the western coasts of Anatolia. From the Piraeus, probably via Icaria, the ships reached the island of Samos, and from here they could continue northwards, towards Lesbos, Lemnos, Samothrake, potentially joining with the aforementioned route towards the Black Sea, or that could continue southwards, towards Rhodes, the possible origin of a route not only towards the southern coast of Anatolia and then to Cyprus, but also in a contrary direction, towards the central and perhaps northern coast of Asia minor.

In the first quarter of the 5th century, the cup is again the most attested shape, with more than thirty specimens, followed by lekythoi and Panathenaic amphorae. There is also a good number of skyphoi, and single specimens of olpe, oinochoe, calyx-crater and the only alabastron attested in Anatolia.

The new perspective, at that point, permits us to enlarge the view to allow the possible nodal points of transit of this kind of pottery, in search of the possible flows that permitted the supplying of external markets. In this perspective, Cyprus appears to be an important nodal point for the supplying of Near-Eastern markets. On the island, vases of painters attested at Rhodes are common, but also vases present in the Near-Eastern markets (Syria, Fenicia, and Palestine) and the Pharaonic Egypt are documented.

In the second quarter of the 5th century, instead, the variety of shapes is unaltered, although the number of vases decreases. Kylikes and lekythoi are always the more attested shapes; the craters are less documented, and there is a single specimen of amphora and askos and two Head vases (one of the Cook and the other of the Sabouroff class). In the third quarter of the 5th century the importation of Attic pottery decreases sharply. In fact, only six vases are attested: a white-ground lekythos, a hydria, a squatlekythos, a stemless cup, an oinochoe and a skyphos.

Shapes In his lists, Beazley registers in total 173 vases coming from this region. The peninsula appears, from Beazley’s

In the last quarter of the century, only a bell-crater of the Painter of Nikias is attested.

  Beazley corrects the provenance (Symi) in Kyme (ARV2 1492.16).

1

82

Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello : Attic Imports to Anatolia At the beginning of the 4th century, only few vases are attested: a pelike, an askos and a skyphos.

man and a youth.16 Another goddess (Nike or Gorgon), is represented running with a dog on a too fragmentary piece.17 Among the mythological scenes, there is the fight of Heracles and Nessus.18 The Dionysian19 and the komos20 scenes are very common. A scene with the forepart of a chariot is of uncertain interpretation for the fragmentary preservation,21 as also a scene with a seated man with, at his back, a woman and a youth.22

In the second quarter of the 4th century, there is a clear increase of imports, with a greater preference for the oinochoai, followed by pelikai and skyphoi. A single specimen of bell-crater is attested. After the middle of the century, the imports are again very scanty: in the third quarter of the century, there are only three pelikai, while in the last quarter the only vase in Beazley’s list is a pelike.

In 525-500 B.C. the black-figure production is, obviously, clearly prevalent over the red-figure one, that, nevertheless, it is precociously accepted. In the black-figure repertory appear themes already well attested: animals,23 Dionysian scenes,24 komos,25 chariots26 and horsemen.27 More frequent that in the past the clearly recognizable mythic scenes: Achilles and Troilus,28 Theseus and the Minotaur (two specimens),29 Dionysos mounting a chariot and the struggle between Apollo and Heracles for the tripod.30 There is also a probably agonistic scene, with a youth running with a spear together with other youths.31 Of uncertain interpretation, for its fragmentary conditions, is a scene with a man and a youth confronted,32 the probable representation of a warrior leaving home,33 a scene with Athena and Dionysos,34 a scene with two youths.35 In this period, the red-figure production is represented by a fragmentary crater of the Pioneers with a homosexual courting36 and by a fragment with a crouching youth.37

It is not possible, at this stage of the research, to explain the change in fortune of the shapes in each quarter of century. To achieve this result it is necessary to have a clear knowledge of the contexts, but this will be possible only with the systematic study of the vases from sanctuaries, necropolis, and towns. In fact, we are updating and increasing Beazley’s lists that, as it is well known, do not offer information about the contexts. Themes As for the themes (Fig. 3) attested on Attic pottery found in Anatolia, in general they do not differ significantly from the general trends of Attic imagerie, but there are some noteworthy cases. In 600-575 B.C. the scenes with real and/or fantastic animals, that can be the main or the secondary decoration of the vase, are very frequent.2 Scenes of komos3 and dance4 are attested, whilst, among the myths, we have the wedding of Menelaos and Helen on a lebes gamikos of Sophilos,5 and Herakles and Nereus.6

In 500-475 B.C. the black-figure vases are still absolutely predominant, thanks also to the diffusion of some classes and groups of ‘current’ production, with repetitive themes.38 The Dionysian scenes39 are very common, and also the komos40 and military scenes.41 Among the other themes, a

In the following period, not rich in exemplars, there are military and agonistic scenes: a horseman,7 a fragmentary scene of fight.8 There are also real and fantastic animals.9 Military scenes and scenes with chariots are well attested also in the 550-525 B.C.: a warrior putting on greaves,10 a group of warriors arming,11 running chariots and warriors,12 fights horseman and hoplite,13 horseman and youths.14

 ABV 452.3.  ABV 115.3bis, 685, Para 46. 18  ABV 419.4. 19  ABV 124.18; ABV 151.18, 687, Para 63; ABV 688. 20  ABV 250.18; ABV 250.24. 21  ABV 192.6bis, 689. 22  ABV 454.2, Para 196.8. 23   Para 102.36; ABV 660.1; ABV 660.2; ABV 660.3. 24  ABV 275.137, 691; ABV 323.25; ABV 379.278; ABV 469.67bis, 699, Para 209. 25  ABV 380.294ter, 695, Para 162. 26  ABV 380.294bis, 695, Para 162. 27  ABV 366.81ter, 695; Para 84.28, 196.9bis. 28  ABV 465.25, Para 206 29   Para 117 and Para 84.28, 196.9bis. 30  ARV2 6, ABV 692, Para 128. 31  ABV 465.31, Para 206. 32  ABV 447.11bis, 698. 33  ABV 323.25. 34   Para 165. 35   Para 206. 36  ARV2 33.1. 37  ARV2 141.70. 38   See the part on painters. 39  ABV 495.142bis, 701; ABV 555.427; ABV 633.7; ABV 633.12; ABV 633.13; ABV 633.14bis, 712; ABV 634.21bis, 712; ABV 635.36bis, 712; ABV 638.82bis, 712; ABV 640.108; ABV 641.116bis; ABV 641.128bis, 713; ABV 642.132bis; ABV 642.138, 651; ABV 642.139bis, 713, Para 310; ABV 642.148; ABV 645.186, 653; ABV 647.207bis, 713, Para 310; ABV 647.207ter, 713, Para 310; Para 312. 40  ABV 394.12, 696; ABV 575.5; ABV 640.108. 41  ABV 541.73; ABV 625.2; ABV 635.40bis; ABV 635.40ter, 712; ABV 635.42; ABV 644.176bis, 713, Para 310; Para 275; ABV 645.186, 653; ABV 645.185. 16 17

The decorations with real and fantastic animals are still rather frequent both as main and secondary decoration.15 In one case, there is a representation which is rather difficult to interpret, with a winged woman (Nike?) between a

  Para 10; ABV 11.18; ABV 15.1; ABV 21.1bis, 680, Para 14; ABV 21.1ter, 680, Para 14; ABV 24.4bis, 680, Para 15; ABV 25.10; Para 9; ABV 40.20, 714; Para 18. 3  ABV 27.35; ABV 31.3bis, 680, Para 16; ABV 32.19bis, 680, Para 16. 4   Para 18. 5  ABV 40.20, 714. 6  ABV 25.18. 7  ABV 79.1. 8  ABV 52.8. 9  ABV 68.4; ABV 78.13; ABV 106, 685, Para 47; ABV 182.23bis, 688, Para 74, fr.. 10   Para 52. 11   Para 81.18. 12  ABV 192.5bis, 689; 192.5ter, 689. 13  ABV 194.4, 625.2. 14   Para 83.23. 15  ABV 457.10; ABV 452.3; ABV 192.8bis, Para 79; ABV 118.48bis,685; Para 75.43quater; Para 89.29. 2

83

SOMA 2009 goddess mounting a chariot,42 hunters,43 a running man,44 two youths talking,45 Nike,46 a woman seated between two oxen,47 a probable courting scene,48 sphinxes49 and sirens.50 In the red-figure production, there is a cup of Onesimos with komos scenes51 and a probable scene of symposium.52

amazonomachy,75 Dionysian scenes,76 warriors,77 youths,78 athletes,79 woman and head of a woman.80 As it is possible to see, also in the themes on the pottery found in Anatolia there is a gradual shifting from the world of godhead and myths to the world of mankind, which can be noticed in the general trend of Attic imagery. Only some themes, such as Dionysian subjects and komos, are more widely attested, but also this is perfectly corresponding to the iconographic choices of Attic pottery. These observations are, in any case, very generic, because the real fortune of the themes must be evaluated town by town, in a second stage of the research, when more data is available.

In the subsequent period (475-450 B.C.), red-figure pottery is the only one attested, with Dionysian themes,53 komos,54 symposium,55 arming warriors,56 woman57 and youth near an altar,58 running women,59 conversation scenes.60 Among the recognizable mythical themes, the death of Orpheus,61 Achilles and Troilos,62 a winged youth pursuing a woman (Boreas and Oreithya? Zetes and Phoibe?),63 Apollo,64 Nike.65

For the first quarter of the 6th century, eight painters are attested in Anatolia and in the island immediately in front of the peninsula. There are, in fact, three vases in the manner of the Gorgon Painter,81 one specimen of the Early Olpai,82 two Horse-Head amphorae,83 two lekanides of the Dresden Lekanis Group,84 seven vases of the Komast Group,85 a vase of the Painter of Xanthos A 6.344486 and two vases assigned to Sophilos.87

Scanty are the attestations of pottery in the second half of the 5th century. In 450-425 B.C. a fragmentary whiteground lekythos with a woman,66 Boreas and Oreithya,67 Apollo and a woman,68 a woman (goddess?) with a lyre and another woman offering her a crown,69 generic scenes with youths and men.70 In 425-400 B.C., only a fragment of the Painter of Nikias with a torch-racer.71 The themes represented on the few 4th century vases known to Beazley are perfectly in keeping with the generic iconography of much of the Attic production of this period: griphomachy,72 head of Arimasp between heads of griffins,73 head of Arimasp and head of horse,74

Six painters are attested for 575-550 B.C., with a clear preeminence of the Painters of Siana cups. Vases are assigned to the C Painter,88 to the Heidelberg Painter,89 to the Painter of Athens 533,90 to the manner of the Griffin Painters,91 and to the Group of the Oxford Lid.92 A Gordion cup is signed by Kleitias, and another specimen is close to his production.93 In the third quarter of the 6th century there is an increase in the specimens, with a consequent diversification of the shapes and of the painters attested. In this period, the most attested painters in Anatolia, according to Beazley’s list, are the companions of Lydos.94 Three vases of the Painter of Amasis are attested,95 and a good quantity of vases can be assigned to the Little Masters;96 some specimens are also signed by the potters Klitomenes97 and Tleson.98

 ABV 542.120septies, 706, Para 269.  ABV 633.12; ABV 635.42. 44  ABV 647.210bis, 713, Para 310. 45  ABV 625. 46  ABV 555.427. 47  ABV 533.10. 48  ABV 619.61ter, Para 307. 49  ABV 622.119bis, 711, Para 306; ABV 622.119ter, 711, Para 306; ABV 622.119quater, 711, Para 306. 50  ABV 625. 51  ARV2 325.74ter, Para 360. 52  ARV2 227.18. 53  ARV2 491.128; ARV2 492.160; ARV2 883.56. 54  ARV2 572. 55  ARV2 831.13; ARV2 865. 56  ARV2 572; ARV2 599.7. 57  ARV2 710.49. 58  ARV2 865. 59  ARV2 712.89; ARV2 740.1. 60  ARV2 925.6. 61  ARV2 588.89. 62  ARV2 864.18, 1673. 63  ARV2 599.7. 64  ARV2 609.10. 65  ARV2 678.22, 692. 66  ARV2 995.127. 67  ARV2 1149.26. 68  ARV2 1172.20. 69  ARV2 1262.58bis. 70  ARV2 1295.7. 71  ARV2 1333.2. 72  ARV2 1454.18; ARV2 1463.19. 73  ARV2 1492.10. 74  ARV2 1492.16. 42 43

 ARV2 1478.2; ARV2 1478.5.  ARV2 1478.5. 77  ARV2 1467.107. 78   ARV2 1454.18; ARV2 1464.62; ARV2 1467.107; ARV2 1491.188; ARV2 1494.1; Para 498. 79  ARV2 1484.1; ARV2 1487.112. 80  ARV2 1490.170 81  ABV 10-14 and 679, 714; Para 8-9. 82  ABV 14-15 and 679; Para 9. 83  ABV 15-17 and 679; Para 9-10. 84  ABV 21-22 and 680; Para 14. 85  ABV 23-33 and 680 and 714; Para 14-16. 86   Para 18. 87  ABV 37-42 and 681, 714; Para 18-19. 88  ABV 51-58 and 681-681; Para 23-25. 89  ABV 63-66 and 682, 716; Para 26-27. 90  ABV 68; Para 28. 91  ABV 74; Para 29. 92  ABV 616-617 and 711; Para 306. 93  ABV 76-80 and 682; Para 29-30. 94  ABV 115-129 and 685; Para 46-49 and 50-51. 95  ABV 150-158 and 687-688,698, 714; Para 62-67. 96  ABV 159-197 and 688-689; Para 67-80. 97  ABV 167; Para 69. 98  ABV 179-183 and 688; Para 74-76. 75 76

84

Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello : Attic Imports to Anatolia Among the mannerist, the Elbows-Out Painter is attested twice.99 With a single specimen are also attested the Class of Vatican 42,100 the Painter of London B31,101 the Group of the Dolphin,102 the FP Class103 and the Group of Rhodes 11941.104 Two vases are assigned to the Painter of the Nicosia Olpe.105

specimens).123 The Group of Vatican G49124 and the Painter of Elaious 1125 are also attested. Well represented are the skyphoi of the CHC Group (4 specimens)126 or connected to it,127 and the cups of the Leafless Group (27 vases).128 As for the red-figure painters, the Painter of Eucharides129 and Onesimos130 are attested.

In 525-500 B.C. the number of attested vases is high (25 black-figure and 3 red-figure), and also the number of shapes and painters. The greater quantity of the attested painters continues to prefer the black-figure technique, such as the Painters of Lysippides106 and of Antimenes and his followers.107 Among the painters of big vases, the Painter of Euphiletos is attested.108 There are also vases of the Group of the Cups with courting scenes,109 of the Leagros Group (five attestations),110 a Panathenaic amphora of the Group of Copenhagen 99111 and an olpe of the Dot-Ivy Class.112

In 475-450 B.C. only red-figure vases are attested, with 21 specimens. Among the so-called late-Archaic Mannerists there is Hermonax,131 whose distribution in Anatolia is testified by two vases. Among the Mannerists, there is also the Painter of Leningrad132 and one of the Early Mannerists (Undetermined).133 Among the painters of big vases, there is the Niobid Painter134 and his manner,135 and the Painter of Villa Giulia.136 Among the painters of Nolan amphorae and lekythoi there is the Painter of Nikon,137 of Bowdoin,138 of Aischines,139 of Reading 50.x.4 (1)140 and the manner of the Painter of Karlsruhe.141

Among the painters of lekythoi, the Group of Phanyllis (five attestations),113 the Cock Group114 and a Cup of the Stemless Class are attested.115 There are also three miniaturist skyphoi and two miniaturist lekanides connected with the Swan Group.116

Among the painters of cups, the Painter of Amphitrite,142 the manner of the Painter of Pistoxenos (two vases),143 the Painter of Penthesilea144 and the Painter of Bruxelles R330.145 Finally, there is an askos of the Class of the Seven Lobster-Claws146 and configured vases of Class N,147 Class O or Sabouroff Class.148

Among the red-figure vases there is a bilingual amphora assigned to Psiax,117 a calyx-crater of the Pioneer Group118 and a vase of the Pithos119 Painter.

In 450-425 B.C. there is a decrease in the Attic pottery found in Anatolia. Only six vases and as many painters are attested: the Achilles Painter,149 the manner of the Painter of Kleophon,150 Polion,151 the Painter of Calliope,152 the Marlay153 and the Montlaurès154 Painters.

In 500-475 B.C. there is a pre-eminence of painters that continue to use the old black-figure technique (8 painters with 46 attestations). Only two red-figure painters are attested. The Painter of Munich 1519,120 a representative of the late phase of the Leagros Group and Companion of the Nikoxenos Painter, is attested. The Painter of Eucharides,121 a bilingual painter, is represented by four specimens of Panathenaic amphorae. There are also painters of blackfigure lekythoi, such as those of the Class of Athens 581 I (two specimens)122 and of the Haimon Group (five

 ABV 539-571, 705-708 and 716; Para 269-287.  ABV 533 and 705; Para 266. 125  ABV 574-576 and 708; Para 289. 126  ABV 617-623 and 711; Para 306-308. 127  ABV 624-625; Para 308. 128  ABV 632-649, 711-713 and 716; Para 310-313. 129  ARV2 226-232, 1637 and 1705; Para 347-348. 130  ARV2 318-330, 1645-1646, 1701 and 1706; Para 358-361. 131  ARV2 483-492, 1655 and 1706; Para 379-380. 132  ARV2 567-572 and 1659; Para 390-391. 133  ARV2 583-588 and 1660; Para 393. 134  ARV2 598-608, 1661 and 1701-1702; Para 394-396. 135  ARV2 608-612 Para 1660-1662 and 1706; Para 396-397. 136  ARV2 618-626 and 1662; Para 398-399. 137  ARV2 650-652, 1572, 1581, 1663-1664 and 1699; Para 402-403. 138  ARV2 677-689, 1665-1666 and 1706; Para 405-407. 139  ARV2 709-718, 1667-1668 and 1706; Para 408-410. 140  ARV2 739-740; Para 412. 141  ARV2 740-741. 142  ARV2 830-833, 1671-1672 and 1702; Para 422. 143  ARV2 863-865; Para 425-426. 144  ARV2 879-890, 1673, 1703 and 1707; Para 428-429. 145  ARV2 925-931 and 1674-1675; Para 431. 146  ARV2 970-971; Para 435. 147  ARV2 1539-1544, 1698 and 1704; Para 503-504. 148  ARV2 1544-1545 and 1698; Para 504. 149  ARV2 986-1001, 1676-1677 and 1708; Para 437-439. 150  ARV2 1147-1151; Para 457. 151  ARV2 1171-1173 and 1685; Para 459. 152  ARV2 1259-1263, 1688 and 1707; Para 470-471. 153  ARV2 1276-1281, 1689, and 1708; Para 472-473. 154  ARV2 1294-1296; Para 474. 123 124

 ABV 248-251 and 691; Para 112.  ABV 418-419 and 696; Para 182. 101  ABV 452 and 698; Para 195-196. 102  ABV 457-458 and 698; Para 199-200. 103   Para 80-82. 104   Para 86-91. 105  ABV 452-454 and 698; Para 196-197. 106  ABV 262-265; Para 116-117. 107  ABV 266-275 and 691; Para 117-121. 108  ABV 321-325 and 694; Para 142-143. 109   Para 82-83. 110  ABV 354-391 and 665, 695-696, 715-716; Para 161-167. 111  ABV 403; Para 175. 112  ABV 446 449 and 698; Para 193-194. 113  ABV 463-466 and 699; Para 204-208. 114  ABV 466-471 and 699; Para 208-212. 115   Para 100-102. 116  ABV 659-660; Para 316. 117   ABV 292-295 and 338, 609, 674-675, 692; ARV2 1 and 6-9, 16171618; Para 127-128 and 321. 118  ARV2 33-35, 1621 and 1705; Para 324. 119  ARV2 139-141 and 1628; Para 334. 120  ABV 393-394 and 696; Para 173. 121  ABV 395-397 and 696; Para 173-174. 122  ABV 489-98, 700-702, 705 and 716; Para 222-228. 99

100

85

SOMA 2009 In the last quarter of the 5th century, only the Painter of Nikias155 is attested, with a single specimen.

The third quarter of the 6th century is characterized by a progressive decrease of the Mediterranean route, and a corresponding increase of the northern and of the ‘direct’ route, with a clear prosecution towards Naukratis. In any case, the study of Attic pottery from Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia, until now scarcely known, could clarify the relationships among the western Anatolian coast, Rhodes, the southern Anatolian coast, Cyprus, Egypt. A representative distribution is that of the Amasis Painter.166

In the first quarter of the 4th century, the Painter of Rodin 1060,156 the Painter of Kalymnos157 and the Group of the Cambridge Askos158 are attested. In 375-350 B.C. the majority of the vases are of the Fat Boy Group (seven).159 The other vases are assigned to the Filottrano Painter160 and to the G Group (three).161

In the last quarter of the 6th century, the trend of the distribution changes dramatically, with a slight increase in the importations. Very numerous are the painters of black-figure vases, with few painters that use the new red-figure technique, that, contrarily to what happens in Etruscan market has a very scarce success, as in Sicily or in other areas of Magna Graecia, with the exception of Lokroi, important stopping point in the route towards Etruria. A great innovation seems to emerge from the painters, the groups and the classes found in Anatolia. The distribution of the black-figure painters seems to document the disappearance of the southern route (Athens, Cyclades, Libya, and Egypt). The Persian conquest of Egypt by Cambises and the turbulences of all the NorthAfrican route, could have advised against this route and have, on the contrary, favoured the northern route (Athens, northern Greece, Thasos, Black Sea), or the route along the western Anatolian coast towards Rhodes or the direct route (Athens, Samos, western Anatolian coast, Rhodes). This subversion of the routes is well represented, for example, by the distribution of the Antimenes Painter.167 The same disappearance of the African route in connection with the Persian occupation of Egypt is confirmed also by the red-figure painters, for which is attested the northern route and its prosecution towards Rhodes, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. Epiktetos, for example, is attested in Athens, Attica, Aegina, Leuke (island of the Black Sea), Olbia, Berezan, southern Russia, and Kameiros. In the same way, the Pithos Painter is attested in Athens, Rheneia, Vrastina Kalyvia (Chalcidic peninsula), Olynthos, Olbia, Kofina in Kios, Rhodes, Camiros, Marion, Tell Jemmeh, Tell Abu Hawam, Tell en Nasheb.

In the third quarter of the 4th century, there are only three pelikai of the Amazon Painter,162 and, in the last quarter, a single specimen of the Group of Mytilene 590.163 Routes Beazley’s data permit also to formulate some hypotheses on the distribution routes of Attic pottery from Athens towards the Anatolian peninsula. The data offered by the distribution of the Gorgon Painter, of the horse-head amphorae, of the Komast Group and of Sophilos seem to indicate, on one hand, a southern route that, from Athens, reached the Cyclades, Crete, the Libyan coasts and then Egypt and, on the other, a second route that, after having reached Delos and Crete, bends towards Karpathos and ends in Rhodes. Parallel to these two routes, there is probably a more direct one, from Athens to the western coast of Anatolia. Probable, finally, although scarcely attested, is a fourth route towards the Chalcidic peninsula and then towards Kavala, with a stopping place in Rhodes, and then towards Lycia (Xanthos), Pamphilia, Cilicia, and then Marion on the northern coast of Cyprus and from here towards Syria, Phoenicia, Palest and probably Egypt. For the second quarter of the sixth century (575-550 B.C.), the greater presence of vases along the northern route and the absence of vases of this period in Libya suggest that the northern route, that will be predominant in the following period, tends in this moment to prevail on the southern route. Following this route, the ships, having reached the western coast of Anatolia, via Thasos, continue towards Smyrne, and then Rhodes and the southern coast of Anatolia. In this regard, it is significant, for example, the distribution of the vases of the C Painter164 and of the Heidelberg Painter.165

The first quarter of the 5th century is the moment of greatest presence of Attic pottery along the western coast of Anatolia, still with numerous black-figure painters, groups and classes. The northern route (via Thasos towards the western coast of Anatolia and the Black Sea) is prevailing.

 ARV2 1333-1335 and 1690; Para 480.  ARV2 1444-1445. 157  ARV2 1494. 158  ARV2 1505; Para 499. 159  ARV2 1484-1492e 1695-1696; Para 497-498. 160  ARV2 1453-1454. 161  ARV2 1462-1470, 16994-1695 and 1708; Para 494-495. 162  ARV2 1478-1480; Para 496. 163  ARV2 1480; Para 497. 164   Rome (2); Vulci (3); Orvieto (1); Narce (1); Chiusi (1); Near Naples (1); Cumae (7); Nola (3); Selinous (3); Gela (1); Monte Casale (1); Megara Hyblaea (2); Syracuse (1); Taranto (20); Locri (1); Ruvo (1); Greece (6); Athens (29); Eleusis (7); Attica? (1); Corinth (2); Perachora (6) Thebes (1); Thebes? (1); Tanagra (2); Boeotia (1); Delos (3); Thera (1); Berezan (3); Kavala (6); Thasos (3); Samos (1); Camiros (1); Ialysos (5); Rhodes (1); Siana (3); Naukratis (10); Cyrene (1). 165   Vulci (1); Chiusi (1); Cumae (1); Megara Hyblaea (2); Selinous 155 156

(10); Taranto (6); Greece (3); Athens (6); Near Phaleron (1); Boeotia (2); Corinth (2); Delphi (1); Near Tenea (1); Perachora (5); Tanagra (1); Delos (1); Kavala (2); Mesambria? Near Alexandroupolis (1); Camiros (3); Ialysos (1); Old Smyrna (1); Naukratis (2). 166  Etruria (3); Vulci (14); Orvieto (5); Chiusi (1); near Arezzo (1); Cumae (1); Capua (1); Selinous (2); Greece (1); Athens (17); Vari (1); Eleusis (1); Perachora (1); Boiotia (1); Tanagra (1); 8.2 Rheneia (1); Kavala (1); Berezan (1); Samos (2); Rhodes (1); Camiros (1); Smyrne (1); Marion (1); Naucratis (9). 167   Etruria (4); Falerii (4); Cerveteri (4); Tarquinia (23); Vulci (107); near Viterbo (1); Toscanella (1); Nepi (1); Narce (1); Orvieto (4); Cuma (1); Paestum (1); Capua (1); Nola (1); Siracusa (1); Agrigento (1); Ruvo (1); Bologna (5); Grecia indistinta (1); Atene (5); Egina (1); Thasos (1); Kerch (1); Rhodes (1); Camiros (2); Ialysos (2); Xanthos (1); Dali (1).

86

Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello : Attic Imports to Anatolia In this regard, the distribution of the Leafless Group is emblematic: of this group, represented in Anatolia by twenty seven specimens, it is possible to follow step by step the route from Athens, along the northern coast of Greece, the Anatolian coast, Rhodes, Syria, Palestine and, finally, Egypt on one hand, Susa on the other. The route Athens, Cyclades, Samos, western Anatolian coast is attested, among the others, by the distribution of the Lion Class, present in Athens, Attica, Aegina, Kameiros, Rhodes. The northern route, together with the restored southern route, is represented, for example, by the Class of Athens 581,1, attested in Athens/Attica, Olynthos, near Thessaloniki, Olbia, Istros, Kerch, southern Russia, Kameiros, Ialysos, Xanthos and Aegina, Delos, Melos, Kyrene. In this period, only some vases painted in the new red-figure technique are attested. In any case, the distribution framework is clear. The ‘intermediate’ route, from Athens to Cyclades and to Rhodes, is prevalent. Probably on the increase is the old route Athens-Cyclades-Libya-Egypt, attested, for example, by the Eucharides Painter and by Onesimos. Always attested are, in any case, the northern route (see, for example, the Flying-angel Painter) and the direct one (see, for example, the Kleophrades Painter, the Berlin Painter and his manner, the Nikoxenos Painter).

In the fourth century, the number of Attica vases imported in Anatolia is reduced to few specimens, while they are well attested along the northern and the southern route. The prolific Fat Boy Group, attested especially in the Western Mediterranean Area gives detailed information. It is possible to trace a route from Athens to Melos, Benghazi and Cirenaica, then Karpathos, Rhodes, Nisyros, Kalymnos, and a second route from Athens to Olynthos, Troad, and perhaps Smyrne. It is still to be explained if this route could continue towards Rhodes or, on the contrary, be incorporated in a route from Rhodes to Smyrne. Group G helps enormously in the reconstruction of the southern and of the northern routes of distribution. For the southern route, vases are attested in the Cyclades, in southern Crete, Cirenaica, Rhodes, and Al Mina. For the northern route, vase are attested in Olynthos, Amphipolis, Pella, Thasos, and from here on one hand towards Apollonia Pontica, Mesambria, Bulgaria, Olbia, Southern Russia, Crimea, Kerch, Taman, and on the other along the western Anatolian coast to Mylasa, Myrina, Budrum. Therefore, for the fourth century, besides the southern, northern and direct routes, still attested, there are few clues as to why there are very few imports of Attic pottery. Moreover, the southern route seems to continue along the western coast towards the Iberian Peninsula, and the northern towards the Black Sea. Of all these complex relationships, clearer answers could be expected when the picture offered by Beazley will be compared with the updated frame provided by the ‘post-Paralipomena project’.

In the second quarter of the 5th century, the presence of red-figure painters is clearly predominating. The restored, although weak, southern route is attested, the northern route is always functioning, as the direct route. See, for example, the distribution of the vases of the Aischines Painter (Athens/Attica, Salamis, Eretria, Elaious, near Ephesus?, Kameiros, Ialysos and from here to Al Mina and Atlit (Haifa). Proof of the direct route Athens-CycladesRhodes via Ikaria is the distribution of the Leningrad Painter (Athens, Rheneia, Ikaria, Kameiros, Aspendos, Al Mina, and Naukratis).

Abbreviations ABV: Beazley, J.D. 1956. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford. ARV2: Beazley, J.D. 1963, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford. Para: Beazley, J.D. 1971. Paralipomena. Additions ���������������� to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford.

The northern route is attested, for example, by the distribution of the following painters: ‘Earlier Mannerists VII: undetermined’ (attested, beside Kameiros, on one hand in Athens/Attica, Thasos, Mytilene, and on the other Rheneia, Cirenaica, Egypt?, Naukratis), and the Niobid Painter, attested on one hand in Delos and Euhesperides, and on the other in Smyrne, Olbia, Kiev, southern Russia, and also in Ialysos, Kameiros, Kimissala in Rhodes, and from here in Xantos, Al Mina, Samaria.

Bibliography Giudice, F. 1990. ‘La ceramica attica in Sicilia. Commercio e importazione’. In: Lo stile severo in Sicilia. Dall’apogeo della tirannide alla prima democrazia, 147-50, Palermo. Giudice, F. 1992. ‘Le importazioni dei vasi attici in Magna Grecia. Il caso di Locri.’ Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 1, 203-8. Giudice, F. 1993. ‘Le rotte commerciali dei vasi attici dal VI al IV sec. a.C. Analisi quantitativa e qualitativa.’ Archeologia e Calcolatori 4, 181-96. Giudice, F. (ed.) (forthcoming). ‘Veder greco a Kamarina’. Giudice, F. and Giudice, G. 2008. ‘Le grandi rotte della ceramica attica: riflessioni sui punti di snodo.’ In: Gemma Sena Chiesa ed., La Collezione di vasi Intesa Sanpaolo e i nuovi indirizzi di ricerca, Milano.

In the third quarter of the fifth century the import of Attic pottery is dramatically reduced. The two functioning routes are the southern (more direct, via Cyclades, or longer, via Libya). The few vases in Samos, which rebelled against Athens in 440 B.C., are probably due to the route along the northern coast towards Rhodes. From Rhodes, the vases are distributed in Cyprus, Syria, Phoenicia and probably the ‘Persian’ Egypt (Naukratis, Memphis). In the last quarter of the fifth century, only a vase of the Nikias Painter is attested, and this could point towards the northern route. Vases of this painter are in fact attested in the Troas, in Rhodes and Al Mina.

87

SOMA 2009 Giudice, F. and Panvini, R. (eds.) 2003. TA ATTIKA. Veder greco a Gela. Ceramiche figurate dall’antica colonia, Roma.

Giudice, F., Giudice, G., Giudice, E. and Muscolino, F. (forthcoming). ‘Attic Imports to Cyprus: the Construction of the Reference Frame.’ In: Proceedings of the IVth International Cyprological Congress (Lefkosia 2008).

Fig. 1: Attic pottery in Anatolia: synthetic graphs 88

a

Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello : Attic Imports to Anatoli

Fig. 2: Attic pottery in Anatolia: the sites 89

SOMA 2009

Fig. 3: Attic pottery in Anatolia: the shapes 90

Filippo Giudice, Elvia e Giada Giudice, Francesco Muscolino and Giuseppe Sanfilippo Chiarello : Attic Imports to Anatolia

Fig. 4: Attic pottery in Anatolia: the themes 91

92

An Ethnobotanical Plant from the Hittite Flora: HatalkišniGüngör Karauğuz and Murat Aydın Şanda Education Faculty, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Biology Department, Faculty of Art and Science, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey As a result of archaeological excavations carried out in Boğazköy (Hattuša) since 1906, a great many cuneiformed documents, which can shed light on the state of Hittite political, cultural and religious aspects, are still being discovered. There are certain Hittite words in all these exposed documents, which are indispensable for Hittite history and can be a problem for Hittitology. One of these words is the plant of hatalkıšni.1 Morphological terms used in connection with the plant are presented here.

48. They put one half to this side of the river and the other half to the other side. 49. They build a big door in the front side from h. 50. Then they bind a piece of string onto the door. 51. Afterwards they make a fire in front of the large door on this side. 52. and on the other side as well. 53. They line up along the river and 54 sprinkle water on themselves.

Data

The expression above mentioned as GIŠha-at-tal-ki-iš-naaš KA.GAL ‘the big door made from h.’ 6 has been seen in the texts7 of the ritual Tunnawi,8 Ašdu-ritual in KUB XLVIII 70 Rs. 8,9 in KBo XXIII 43 Rs.? III 9-10,10 in the ritual of Protecting God,11 in another ritual text12 and in the ritual texts written in Hurriance.13

This plant name, which can be separated into hatt(a) “to pin”+ alkišta(n) ‘branch’, is usually translated as ‘a type of wood’2 or ‘prickly-bush’ (hawthorn, firethorn)3 and it has been emphasized that it must be ‘a tall plant’.4 In a text concerning a ritual after a withdrawal of the Hittite army,5 h. plant has played an important role in the rite, beginning with a sacrifice of a man together with some animals.

In the Legend of Goddess Hannahanna’s Losing, featuring one of the most popular and common motifs,14 interesting information is given about the flower and fruit of this plant. 13 zi-ga-az GIŠha-tal-kiš-na-aš ha-mi-eš-hi-ia-az BABBARTIM [wa-aš-ša-ši] 14 BURU14-ma-az iš-har-wa-an[-da wa-aš-ša-ši] GU4-uš ták-kán kat-ti[-ti] 15 ar-ha pa-iz-zi nu-uš-š[e-eš-ta šu-u]k-šu-uq-qa-an hu-e-ez-[ta] 16 UDU-u[š-m]a-ták-kán kat-ti-ti [(ar-ha pa)-iz-zi] 17 [nu-uš-še-e]š-ta e-eš-ri [hu-e-ez-]ta

45 ma-a-an ERÍNMEŠHI.A IŠ-TU LÚKÚR hu-ul-la-anta-ri 46 nu SÍSKUR EGIR ÍD kiš-an ha-an-da-an-zi nu EGIR ÍD 47 UN-an MÁŠ.GAL UR.TUR ŠAH.TUR iš-tar-na ar-ha ku-ra-an-zi 48 nu ke-e-ez MAŠHI.A ti-ia-an-zi ki-i-iz-zi-ia MAŠHI.A ti-an-zi 49 pí-ra-an-ma GIŠha-at-tal-ki-iš-na-aš KÁ.GAL-aš i-ia-an-zi 50 nu-uš-ša-an ti-ia-mar še-er ar-ha hu-it-ti-ia-an-zi 51 nam-ma KÁ.GAL pí-ra-an ke-ez-za pa-ah-hur waar-nu-wa-an-zi 52 ke-ez-zi-ia pa-ah-hur wa-ar-nu-wa-an-zi 53 nu-kán ERÍNMEŠ iš-tar-na ar-ha pa-an-zi GIM-anma-aš-kán 54 ÍD-an ta-[p-u]š a-ri nu-uš-ma-aš-kán wa-a-tar 55 ša-ra-a pa-ap-pár-aš-kán-zi

13 You are the h. In spring you [wear] white 14 but in harvest season you wear red. The cow goes out from under you, 15 and you pull off a tuft of its hair. 16 The sheep goes out from under you,

  See also Puhvel 1991: 257 for the translation of ‘gate of prickly shrub’.   See the other cuneiformed documents in which it is mentioned: KBo XXXIII 126 Vs. 1 ]-az GIŠha-tal-kiš-na-aš 2 ]x ar-ha pa-iz-zi SALŠU. [GI]. KBo XL 162 Vs. 3 –z]i DNIN.GAL-za ku-e-da-ni pé-e-di 4 p] é-e-da-aš GIŠha-tal-ki-iš-na-aš ar-ta-ri. KBo XXXIX 21, 5’ GIŠha-tal-[. 8   Goetze 1938: 18, 108; KBo XXI 1 I 5 ……….. GIŠha-tal-kiš-ša-na-aš 6 KÁ.GAL-an i-ia-mi III NINDAa-a-an I GA.KIN.AG TUR 7 III-ŠU IX NINDA.SIG II NINDA me-ma-al-la-aš tar-na-aš me-ma-al I UP-NU 9   8’ GIŠha-]tal-kiš-na-aš KÁ[.GAL. 10   Otten-Rüster 1981: 132. 9’ GIŠha-tal-ki]-iš-ša-an KÁ.GAL ar-ta-ri 10’ MUŠENHI.A-ia-aš-ša-an an-da ha-ma-an-kán-te-eš 11   KBo XII 96 Vs. I 19’ nam-ma GIŠh[a-tal-kiš-na]-aš KÁ.GAL ti-it-tanu-um-mi 12   KBo XXI 47 II 7 [ke-]e-ez GIŠha-tal-ki-iš-na-aš KÁ.GALTIM i-e-zi 13   KBo XIV 132 Vs.II 10’ GIŠ]ha-tal-ki-iš-na-aš KÁ.GAL iš-ta[r-na; VBoT 24 I 36; del Monte 1973: 124. 14   KUB XXXIII 54. Laroche 1965, 79; Güterbock 1986: 209; Hoffner 1990: 28; Karauğuz 2001: 111. 6 7

45. When enemy troops are defeated. 46. They pick up their victims behind the river, and there. 47. They cut human, goat, puppy and farrow.   See other volumes including other cuneiformed texts: KUB XXXIV 76 Vs. I 1 ka-a-ša GIŠha-tal-ki-i[š-na-aš. 2   Goetze 1938: 91; Sturtevant 1946: 41. 3   Otten 1952: 69-71; Friedrich 1952: 63; Hoffner 1966: 381-382; Hoffner 1974: 16, 120; Tischler 1978: 218; Beckman 1983: 76; Puhvel 1991: 256-257. 4   Ertem 1974: 93-94. 5   KUB XVII 28 Rs. IV; Kümmel 1967: 151-152. 1

93

SOMA 2009 In the text of Hutusi-ritual,19 it is understood that a mixture - probably an unfermented grape-juice or a healing drinkhas been prepared for drinking by using the fruit of this plant.

17 and you pull of some of its (tufts of wool). In the Telipinu Legend, which is one of the ‘Lost God Legends’, many gods sitting under this plant has been depicted.15

11’ DUGHAB.HAB ME-E la-ah-ni-iš 12’ an-da im-me-ia-an-za 13’ GIŠa-la-an-za-na-an GIŠha-tal-kiš-na-aš 14’ ga-la-ak-tar 15’ A-NA DUGHAB.HAB an-da da-a-i 16’ na-at UD-at UD-at 17’ a-ku-wa-an-na pé-eš-ki-iz-z[i]

28 DINGIRMEŠ-eš-za GIŠha-tal-ki-iš-ni kat-ta-an tu-li[ia-aš pí-di(?)] 29 GIŠha-tal-ki-iš-na-ša kat-!ta-an ta-lu-ga-í[a 30 DINGIRMEŠ-eš-ša hu-u-ma-an-te-eš a-ša-an-zi D [Pa-pa-ia-aš (?) DIš-t(u-uš-ta-ia-aš)] 31 DGUL-še-eš DMAHMEŠ DHal-ki-iš DMi-ia[(ta-an-zipa-aš)] 32 DTe-li-pí-nu-uš DLAMA DHa-pa-an-ta-l[i-ia-aš

11-14. He puts the mixture of allanzana plant and h., which has a soothing effect, 15. into a water-can full of water; 16. and they give it daily 17. to drink constantly. In another ritual20 it is repeated that the fruit of this plant has a soothing effect:

28 The gods [are sitting (?) in the place] of convocation under the h. 29 And under the h. long [ ] 30 And all the gods are sitting: The Fate Goddesses, the Mother Goddesses, 31 Telipinu, the Tutelary Deity, Hapantaliia

9 ÁMUŠEN-uš pár-da-a-u-ar i-ia-an-da-aš SÍGhu-ut-tu-liš 10 ga-la-ak-tar ša-ne-ez-zi 11 GIŠmar-še-eq-qa-aš 21 GIŠha-ta-ki-iš-na-aš

Again in the legend, Storm God is lost in the city of Kuliwišna.16 It is told that this plant grows up in banks of valleys or brooks.

9 An eagle wing, a wool-tuft of sheep 10 mild nutriment 11 m. and h.

6 nu ha-ri-ia-aš-ma-aš GIŠha-at-tal-ki-iš-na-aš x[ 7 na-an-za LÚmu-ki-iš-na-aš EN-aš17 da-a-i na-aš-za pár-[

In the text of Tesup’s taking over the throne,22 the fruit of this plant is presumably mentioned among the fruit and cereals, such as fig, raisin, pomegranate, ewan-crop, boiled and pounded wheat.

6. It leads to the place where there are h. 7. The leader of mukišna takes (finds) it.

]x GIŠPÈŠ ŠA GIŠGEŠTIN HÁD.DU.A ŠA NU.ÚR.MA 21 GIŠh]a-tal-ke-eš-na-aš e-u-wa-na-aš me-ma-al ŠA GIŠ IN-BI Result and discussion 20 [

In the Anna ritual,18 when the grape vines have no fruit, the condition is attempted to be alleviated with this magic:

GIŠ

5’III GIŠha-tal-ki-uš ti-it-ta-nu-um-mi 6’ nu ki-iš-ša-an te-mi i-da-a-lu-uš-wa-aš-ša-an 7’ an-tu-u-wa-ah-za i-da-a-lu-uš EME-aš 8’ i-da-a-la-wa IGIHI.A-wa GIŠha-tal-ki-iš-ni-it 9’ kat-ta tar-ma-a-an e-eš-du 5’. I will place three h. 6’. and say that: “may evil 7’ man, evil tongue, and evil eyes be 8’ pinned down by the h.”

As it is understood from the Hittite translations above, the following can be said about this plant: 1. Its timber is (symbolical) used in the construction of doors. 2. The leaves of the plants are white and its fruit is red. 3. Its tree is thorny. 4. It grows by river banks or valley coasts.

  KUB XVII 10 Rs. III. Laroche 1969: 35; Hoffner 1990: 16; DaddiPolvani 1990:82; Karauğuz 2001: 92. 16   KBo XIV 86 Vs. I; Laroche 1969, 71-74; Daddi-Polvani 1990, 108; Karauğuz 2001, 120. 17   This profession name, about the Strom God in the city of Kuliu isna, -((1664/c:DUB.I.KAM ŠA DIŠKUR URUKu-li-ú-iš-na mu-ki-iš-naaš Ú-UL QA-TI. KUB XII 19 II 10 [(lu-uk-kat-ta)] 11 mu-ki-iš-na-aš EZEN A-NA DIM URUKu[(li-wi-iš-na)] 12 LÚmu-ki-iš-na-aš-pát iš-ha-aš i-e-ez-[(zi)]. 11-12 [(The next day)] the person who has commissioned the invocation ritual alone performs the festival of invocation for the Storm God of Kuliwišna)- is tried to be associated with EN.SISKUR who played an important role in Hittite rituals. (Güterbock-Hoffner 1986: 326). 18   KUB XII 44 III. (del Monte 1973, 122; Haas 1988: 138; Puhvel 1991: 257). 15

  KUB XXVIII 102 Rs. IV.   KBo XVIII 193. 21   This type of tree used together with h. has been listed with alkistana (KBo XVII 47 Vs. 5 GI]Šha-tal-ki-iš-na ma-ar-ši-ga[ 6 GIŠa]l-ki-iš-tana[) , apple tree (GIŠHAŠHUR) and artari -trees. KUB XXIX 1 IV 22 nu GIŠar-tar-ti-in GIŠma-ar-ši-iq-qa-an-na ti-an-zi 23 nu ki-iš-ša-an me-mi-ia-an-zi ke-e-wa ma-ah-ha-an 24 ar-še-eš-kánzi nu LUGAL-un MUNUS.LUGAL-un-na 25 ha-aš-še-eš an-da QATAM-MA ar-ši-ia-an-du 22-25 ‘They put (out) a. and m. and say as follows, “As they cultivate these, so may their descendants care for the king and queen.” 22   KBo X 34 Vs. I. 19 20

94

Güngör Karauğuz

and

Murat Aydın Şanda: An Ethnobotanical Plant from the Hittite Flora: HatalkišniThe Rosa taxa in Turkey:27

5. A mixture, which has a soothing, relaxing or a medicinal effect, is obtained from its fruit by mixing it with water. 6. It is generally listed with fruit such as figs, raisins and pomegranates. This plant must be the dog rose or the wild rose, a widely used name in Anatolia, because of the features it shares with the above- mentioned Hittite cuneiformed documents. In Anatolia, the fruit of this plant is known as stringnose, dognose or rosehip.23

1. R. sempervirens L 2. R. phoenica Boiss. 3. R. arvensis Huds. 4. R. pisiformis (Christ.) D. Sosn. 5. R. beggeriana Schrenk. 6. R. foetida J. Herrm. 7. R. hemisphaerica J. Herm. 8. R. pimpinellifolia L. 9. R. elymaitica Boiss. 10. R. gallica L. 11. R. villosa L. a. subsp. villosa. b. subsp. mollis (Sm.) Keller & Gams. 12. R. hirtissima Lonacz. 13. R. tomentosa Smith. 14. R. jundzillii Beser. 15. R. micrantha Sm. 16. R. agrestis Savi. 17. R. pulverulanta Bieb. 18. R. sicula Tratt. 19. R. horrida Fischer 20. R. iberica Stev 21. R. montana Chaix 22. R. canina L. 23. R. dumalis Bechts. subsp. boissieri (Crépin) Ö. Nilsson a. var. boissieri b. var. antalyensis (Manden.) Ö. Nilsson 24. R. heckeliana Tratt. a. susbp. vanheurckiana (Crépin) Ö. Nilsson b. subsp. orientalis (Dupont) Meikle

As it is generally known throughout Anatolia, the fruit of this plant is eaten when it is fresh or dried. Compote, jam, sherbet, fruit paste, puree or grape molasses are made from its fruit. In Anatolia it is known that the puree or grape molasses made from rosehips is locally called such names as pelver, pelverde, tırınç or latdik.



The ethnobotanical features of this plant can be summarized as follows: The Rosa genus includes 24 species, five subspecies and two varieties in the Flora of Turkey. In the descriptions the measurements and colour notes refer to well-developed leaves and ripe hypanthia.24 The genus Rosa, and particularly the R. canina group (with its unique chromosome behaviour and breeding system), is taxonomically very critical. In this account a rather broad species concept is used which in several respects agrees with that of Boulenger. Some species are very polymorphic; the microspecies recognized by some authors often seem artificial and unpractical and transitions between them are common. Putative hybrids (not mentioned in the key) are listed under the species they most closely resemble; the order in which the parental species are cited in the hybrid formula does not indicate which is the parent – in most cases this is unknown. Among the many synonyms of some Rosa species, only those are included which have been used in the area concerned. The external distribution of some critical species is certain or incomplete.25



Species doubtfullsy recorded: 1. R. rubigosa L. 2. R. kotschyana Boiss. 3. R. oxyodon Boiss.

Numerous species and varieties of Rosa are grown in Turkey for ornament and some, notably R. gallica L. and R. damascena, are also cultivated locally for the production of ‘attar of roses’ and ‘rose water’. Apart from the species mentioned in this account, the following are represented in the collections studied: R. moschata J. Herm., R. banksiana Ait., R. wichuraina Crépin and R. damascena Miller. The first two sometimes escape and may become naturalized.26

As a result, Rosa canina L. from these taxa must have been hatalkišni-, as the morphological and ethnobotanical features of Rosa canina seem closely to resemble the Hittite description of hatalkišni-.

  Browicz 1972; Baytop 1977.   Nilsson 1972; Dönmez 2004. 25   Nilsson 1972. 26   Nilsson 1972. 23 24

 According to Nilsson 1972.

27

95

SOMA 2009 Comparative morphological and ethnobotanical features of Rosa canina and hatalkišniRosa canina L. in Turkish flora

hatalkišni- in Hittite texts

Morphological and ethnobotanical features Flowers, time and colour

Flowers solitary or 2-15 together, white, bracts often broad. Pedicels The flowers of the 1-2.5 (-4.5) cm, smooth or glandular-hispid. Sepals ovate, often hatalkišni- are white with a rather short apically dilated tip, outer sepals pinnatifid with narrowly to broadly lanceolate, entire or glandular-toothed lobes, glabrous, pubescent or occasionally with glands on the back, usually reflexed and deciduous soon after anthesis. Petls up to 3 cm, white topale pink, rarely deep pink. Styles often long, exserted, usually glabrous to sparcely hairy, occasionally villous, stigma-head ± loose, globose to conoidal; disc borad, conoidal, orifice narrow. Spring and white.

Fruit time and colour

Autumn; yellowish red to pure red.

Stem and height

Erect shrub, (0.5-)1.5-3.5 (-7) m, sometimes climbing; branches Its tree is thorny often curved or arched. Prickles rather coarse, ± curved, compressed with a dilated base ± uniform, occasionally lacking.

Leaves

Dull to pure green; leaflets 5-7, narrowly elliptic to broadly ovate, The features of leaves 1-4.5 x 0.8-3.5 cm, obtuse to acute with a rounded to cuneate base, not found glabrous to pubescent, at least beneath, sometimes with some glands on the nerves beneath, uni- or bi-serrate, teeth distinct, usually with long and acute, 17-20 on each side.

Habitat

Banks, rocky slopes, scrub, hedges, forests and clearings, mainly on hatalkišni- grows on limestone, 30-1700 (-2500) m altitude. river banks or coastal sites

Distribution in Anatolia

A1 Tekirdağ, Çanakkale; A2 İstanbul, Kocaeli; A3 Bolu; A4 Plant widespread in Kastamonu; A5 Çorum; A6 Ordu; A7 Trabzon; A8 Artvin; A9 Kars; Anatolia B1 Balıkesir; B2 Kütahya; B3 Afyon; B4 Ankara; B5 Yozgat; B6 Sivas; B7 Elazığ; B8 Bitlis; B9 Bitlis, B10 Ağrı; C2 Antalya; C3 Isparta; C4 Konya, Karaman; C5 Niğde; C6 Maraş; C8 Mardin; C9 Hakkari; C10 Hakkari.

Local names

Kuşburnu, kuşburni, itburnu, askil, civil, gülburnu, gül elması, ip hatalkišniburması ve ipburnu.

Abbreviations

The fruit of the hatalkišni- is red

Ertem, H. 1974. Boğazköy Metinlerine göre Hititler Devri Anadolusu’nun Florası, Ankara. Friedrich, J. (1952) Hethitisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg. Goetze, A. 1938 The Ritual of Tunnawi, New Haven. Güterbock, H.G. 1986. ‘A Religious Text From Maşat’, Anadolu Araştırmaları/Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung, X, 205-214. Güterbock, H.G. and Hoffner, H.A. 1986. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago. Haas, V. 1988. ‘Magie in hethitischen Gärten’, in E. Neu and C. Rüster (eds.) Documentum Asia Minoris Antiquae: Festschrift für H. Otten zum 75. Geburtstag, 121-142. Hoffner, H.A. 1966. ‘Composite Nouns, Verbs and Adjectives in Hittites’, Orientalia, XXXV, 377-402. Hoffner, H.A. 1974. Alimenta Hethaeorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor, New Haven. Hoffner, H.A. 1990. Hittite Myths, Atlanta, Georgia. Karauğuz, G. 2001. Hitit Mitolojisi, Konya.

KBo: Keilschrifttexte aus Bogazköi, Leipzig, Berlin. KUB: Keilschrifturkunden aus Bogazköi, Berlin. VBoT: Verstreute Bogazköi-Texte, Marburg, 1930. Bibliography Baytop, T. 1977. Türkçe Bitki Adları Sözlüğü, Ankara. Beckman, G. 1983. M. Hittite Birth Rituals, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Heft 29, Wiesbaden. Browicz, K. 1972. ‘Crataegus L’, in P.H. Davis (ed.) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands 4, 133-147, Edinburgh. Daddi, F.P. and Polvani, A.M. 1990. La mitologia ittita, Paideia, Brescia. Dönmez, A. 2004. The Genus Crataegus L. (Rosaceae) with Special Reference to Hybridisation and Biodiversity in Turkey, Turk Journal of Botany, Vol 28, 29-37.

96

Güngör Karauğuz

and

Murat Aydın Şanda: An Ethnobotanical Plant from the Hittite Flora: Hatalkišni-

Kümmel, H.M. 1967. Ersatz-rituale für den hethitischen König, Wiesbaden, Studien zu Boğazköy-Texten, 3, Wiesbaden. Laroche, E. 1965. ‘Textes mythologiques Hittites en transcription, 1re partie: Mythologie Anatolienne’, Revue hittite et asianique, XXIII/77, 62-176. Laroche, E. 1969. ‘Textes mythologiques Hittites en transcription, 1re partie: Mythologie Anatolienne’, Revue hittite et asianique, Paris, XXVI/82, 5-90. Monte, del, G.F. 1973. ‘La porta nei rituali di Boğazköy’, Oriens Antiquus. Roma, XII, 107-129. Nilsson, Ö. 1972. ‘Rosa L’, in P.H. Davis (ed.) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands 4, Edinburgh, 106128.

Otten, H. 1952. ‘Ein Reigunsritual im Hethitischen:GIŠhatalkišna-‘, Archiv für Orientforschun, Berlin/Graz, XVI, (1952-1953), 69-71. Otten, H. and Rüster, C. 1981. ‘Textanschisse Und Duplikate von Boğazköy-Tafeln’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und werwandte Gebiete Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Leipzig/Berlin, LXXI, 122-134. Puhvel, J. 1991. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 3, Berlin-New York. Sturtevant, E.H. 1946. Eti Dili Sözlüğü, (Çeviren: M.B. Çelebi), İstanbul. Tischler, J. 1978. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar, Innsbruck.

97

98

Colonization in Western Sicily: An Indigenous Response through Skyphoi Analysis Lori Bratton and Michael J. Kolb Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, USA 0 he authors of this paper would like to dedicate to the victims of the NIU shooting on February 14th, 2008, and to all T of those around the world who have lost their lives in pursuit of education. It was a common assumption by scholars of the 20th century, interested in Greek colonization, that ‘barbarian’ natives embraced ‘civilization,’ and dismissed their ‘inferior’ ways to ‘become’ Greek (Dietler 1990). The data to support this theory, however, was not collected from indigenous sites, but from Greek colonies. Indeed, only recently has a concerted effort been made to identify and study indigenous settlements in colonized areas. Investigations of indigenous sites in western Sicily, in particular, are challenging notions of Hellenization with indications that the effects upon, and responses to, this Greek influx by the native peoples of western Sicily were not as dichotomous as many would like to believe, nor were they in any way simple (e.g. Pugliese Carratelli 1996; De Vido 1997; Tusa 1994, 1997; De Angelis 2003; Kolb and Speakman 2004).

Western Sicily provides a unique view of the ancient Mediterranean, as it is the only place where Greeks and Phoenicians settled in close proximity to each other. This was the territory of an enigmatic indigenous group known as the Elymians (cf. Tusa 1992; La Rosa 1996; Spatafora 1996; de Vido 1997), of which little is known in comparison to the other two indigenous groups on the island, the Sikels and Sicans. With the arrival of the Greeks, the Elymian settlement Halicyae found itself sandwiched between the powerful Greek settlement of Selinus and the main Phoenician settlement at Motya (Morris et al. 2002). Elymi/Phoenician and Elymi/Greek relationships were quite different and primarily dependant on the motivations the two outside groups had for settling in Sicily. Phoenician interest in Sicily was a matter of trade, and they established trading-post settlements rather than fully self-sustaining extensions of their empire. This posed little threat to the Elymians, and the two groups became allies and trading partners. The Greeks, on the other hand, viewed their colonization efforts as permanent recreations of their homelands. They had little desire to ‘work with’ their neighbours, instead preferring to dominate and subjugate them, a process we now refer to as Hellenization (Benjamin 2006). Traditional frameworks of Hellenization

To further shed light on the process of indigenous response to Hellenization, we examined the shape and decoration of 34 skyphoi foot sherds from what we argue is the Elymi city of Halicyae (modern day Salemi), excavated by Northern Illinois University (Vecchio, Kolb and Mammina 2003; Kolb, Vecchio and Tyers 2007). Our goal is to better understand ‘how things in circulation helped to define and redefine relationships between people’ (Tilley 1999: 324; Holtorf 2002) in contrast to ‘the recent fashion of divorcing pottery from the people who made, used, and carried it’ (Boardman 2001a; Boardman 2001b: 34). Our results indicate that the skyphoi replaced the indigenous cup, however the Elymi primarily produced and traded hybrid Corinthian/Attic style vessels rather than ‘authentic’ imports.

‘emphasize ethnic identity, drawing clear boundaries between populations, with the Greeks eventually swallowing up or driving off the other groups’, in effect making Sicily Greek (Morris et al. 2002; Morris et al. 2003: 244). Deitler (1990: 356) describes this viewpoint as being

The island of Sicily has the distinction of being one of the smallest islands to play such a large part in history. A region of great fertility and abundant seaports, the island acted as a gateway and a crossroads for the peoples of the Mediterranean for millennia (Finley, Smith and Duggan 1986; Serrati 2000; Benjamin 2006). Agricultural fertility, in particular, was a great draw for the Greeks, who viewed Sicily as ‘a vast, largely untapped resource filled with abundant land’ (Serrati 2000: 11), hence the subsequent exploration and establishment of settlements throughout the 8th and 7th centuries BC. According to Thucydides, the first established Greek colony was Naxos in 734 BC, closely followed by Syracuse in 733 BC, both located on the east coast. Megara Hyblaea was established in 728 BC, and one hundred years later these Megarians found a subcolony, Selinus, in the west (Leighton 1999).

‘a sort of progressive general emulation of “civilized” customs by “barbarians” as a natural and inevitable response to contact’. Furthermore, proponents of the traditional framework often fail to recognize the similarities between Greek adoptions of ‘culture’ from the Near East, and indigenous adoption of ‘culture’ from the Greeks as being similar phenomena. Rather, Greek imitations of Near East goods and designs are seen as ‘evidence of the Greeks active and creative appropriation of foreign ideas,’ whereas Sicilian imitations are seen as ‘subordination of the indigenous culture’ (Hall 2002: 106-7), despite the fact that

99

SOMA 2009 ‘there is little evidence to indicate trappings of Hellenism was necessarily internally perceived as cultural assimilation’. (Morris et al. 2002: 180-1) While Greek influences transformed indigenous cultures in more visible and drastic ways, the motivations for these changes are difficult to ascertain. This is perhaps most obvious at the Elymian site of Segesta, where they (the Elymians) began constructing a Doric temple in the 5tth century BC. Early interpretations present this as evidence that the Segestans had become ‘fully’ Greek. It is now understood that this was not a gesture of cultural abandonment on the part of the Segestans, but part of one of the most successful hoaxes of ancient times; a ploy to convince Athens to support and defend Segesta against the Greeks of Selinus (Finley, Smith and Duggan 1986). Thus the unique circumstances of settlement histories in western Sicily did not follow the patterns of colonization identified elsewhere. The indigenous response of the Elymi peoples to Greek colonizers was tempered by their established relationships with the earlier Phoenician settlements, and as a result we cannot assume that they adopted or reacted to Greek ideological and material culture in the same ways that indigenous peoples in other parts of the Hellenized world did. To examine the Elymi reaction to colonization, as reflected in the material objects of everyday life, this project focused on the foot shape and decoration of 32 sherds from skyphoi drinking vessels. Ideally complete vessels should be used for these types of studies, however, in cases such as this where that is not possible, the foot, its decoration, and the treatment of the underside can provided a wealth of information (Sparkes, Talcott, and Richter 1970). Oakley (1988: 169) emphasizes the importance of foot shape, which he considers ‘the most crucial characteristics for determining whether the vase is of the Corinthian or the Attic shape’. Skyphoi cups were selected both because of their availability, and because its use was not confined to any one specific activity. Cup shape represents an important variable for determining cultural and ethnic ties, and because cups are often the most common of imported vessel in areas of Greek colonization; ‘almost as much a national marker as the Greek language’ (Boardman 2001c: 246; Boardman 2004). As with language, the material culture of the Hellenistic world tended to follow patterns, making the identification of Greek behaviours outside of Greece visible in the archaeological record. This, coupled with the preferences associated with indigenous cultures, allows us ‘to observe intercultural negotiations second hand’ through the interplay of styles in the remnants of the ceramic record available to us today (Jones and Garrigós 2004; Rotroff 2006: 148). The 32 skyphoi study pieces (hereafter referred to as the Halicyae pieces) used for this analysis were compared to the two most prevalent Greek styles of the time: Attic and Corinthian. While these styles are named after their place

of origin, the manufacture of each was not confined to any one geographical location, therefore our use of the terms ‘Attic style’ and ‘Corinthian style’ are in reference to collections of stylistic attributes, not the physical location of either Attica or Corinth. Three separate variables were examined for each skyphoi piece: (1) foot style; (2) exterior decoration; and (3) underside treatment. Foot style refers to the shape of the skyphos base and is highly distinctive. The Corinthian foot style consists of a flaring ring that may also be moulded, while the Attic style consists of a ‘tire shaped’ torus ring foot (Figure 2). Exterior decoration refers to decoration on the wall and exterior surface of the foot. Attic style skyphoi were most commonly completely glazed with no reserved zone, but are occasionally found with a reserved foot (Figure 3). Corinthian style skyphoi most commonly have a glazed wall and foot, with a reserved (unglazed) band where the base of the wall and the foot meet. This reserved band was then decorated with vertical lines, vertical rays, cross hatching or, rarely, left undecorated (Figure 4). Underside treatment refers to design elements placed on the underside of the cup but within the ring of the foot (Rotroff 1997). Underside treatment is perhaps the most infrequent area of the skyphos to be analyzed despite its frequent stylistic use, but provides important clues of vessels origin, particularly so with wall-mounted skyphoi whose bottoms would have been visible (Sparkes, Talcott, and Richter 1970). Underside treatments tended to follow consistent stylistic patterns, making them a useful component for analysis in this study. Of particular note is the schematic theme utilizing one or more concentric circles around a central dot. With both Attic and Corinthian styles, these circles tend to be very symmetric and precisely applied. Attic circles are most often very thin and confined to the central portion of the underside, and Corinthian style pieces often have one circle closely ringing the central dot, and one or more at varying distances, not necessarily confined to any specific area (Sparkes, Talcott, and Richter 1970). The Corinthian style also tended to use a combination of circles of varying widths, ranging from very thin to moderately thick (Figure 5). For further descriptions and illustrations of Attic and Corinthian skyphoi, see Sparkes, Talcott and Richter 1970, Moore 1997, Rotroff 1997, Schrieber 1999 and Clark, Elston and Hart 2002. Analysis of foot style, exterior decoration, and underside treatment reveal that the decorated Halicyae skyphoi do not conform to either the Attic or the Corinthian styles, but rather combine and modify elements of each to form distinctive stylistic hybrids. When each variable is viewed separately, 25 skyphoi (73.53%) posses the unmodified Attic torus ring foot, 8 (23.53%) posses a modified Attic torus ring foot, none posses the unmodified Corinthian ring foot, and 1 (2.94%) possess a modified Corinthian ring foot. 9 skyphoi (26.47%) display unmodified Attic exterior decoration, there are no modified Attic examples, 1 (2.94%) displays an unmodified Corinthian scheme, 100

Lori Bratton and Michael J. Kolb: Colonization in Western Sicily: An Indigenous Response through Skyphoi Analysis 9 (26.47%) posses modified Corinthian schemes, and 15 (44.12%) are either undecorated or undetermined. In regards to underside treatment, 3 (8.82%) posses unmodified Attic style treatments, 0 posses modified Attic treatments, 0 display unmodified Corinthian treatment, 8 (23.53%) posses modified Corinthian schemes, and 23 (67.65%) are undecorated or undetermined. When viewed together, 30 (88.24%) of the Halicyae skyphoi posses a combination of the variables, resulting in a hybridization of styles. The most common hybrid combination is the use of the Attic style torus ring foot and a modified Corinthian exterior decorative scheme. Of the 10 vessels with a variation of this combination, 1 (and probably a second) has no decoration in the reserved area, 6 have 1 thin horizontal band running through the centre of the reserved area, and 2 have 2 thin horizontal bands in the reserve area. While the undecorated reserved band is occasionally (but rarely) found in the Corinthian style, horizontal decorative elements are not, nor are they found in the Attic style. Whether rays, lines or cross-hatching, decorative attributes are situated vertically in ‘authentic’ Corinthian style vessels. In fact, early indications are that this horizontal banding is unique to this area. Two of the above-mentioned vessels have the additional modification of moulding to the torus ring foot. One has a groove in the upper portion of the foot (Figure 6) and the other has a groove on the lower portion of the foot, with at least two incised bands in the centre of the foot. This is significant because moulding is found in Corinthian style pieces with the flaring ring foot, and is not found in Attic style pieces with the torus ring foot. Again, it appears that this combination of styles resulting in a moulded torus ring foot may be unique to this area. Six Halicyae pieces combine the Attic and Corinthian foot styles. One has a flaring ring foot, however it appears as if the intention was to trim a torus ring, and uneven trimming of the wall and underside resulted in a hybrid torus/ flaring ring. A second piece has a similar foot, however it appears to have been the result of under trimming the wall followed by poor trimming of the underside. One example from this group is the most poorly constructed of all of the sample pieces, and could possibly be a training piece. It was trimmed so poorly, in fact, that it is not clear if the intention was to trim a ‘classic’ torus ring, as visible on one side of the piece, or a moulded torus ring with a flaring upper portion (see below) as seen on the other side of the piece. Other signs of the potter’s technical inexperience include distinct rib-smoothing ridges, a gouge in the wall above the foot (from ‘nicking’ the side with the trimming tool), and a sagging floor (Figure 7). As mentioned above, the foot of one, can be described as a raised based torus ring with a flaring upper portion. Another is similar but more exaggerated. The final piece in this group is the most unusual. When the potter trimmed the foot, he trimmed inward more then was customary, creating a distinctive ledge at the base of the wall. The outer face of the foot then angles outward, and a groove

was carved into the middle. The overall effect is a ‘Frankenstein’ skyphos, with the body disproportionate to the foot, and an outward angled torus ring foot seemingly set on top of a flaring ring foot (Figure 8). Whether this was an intentional design/experiment or an attempt to salvage an otherwise soundly made and usable vessel is unknown, however it is clearly an example of an attempt to mould a torus ring foot. The final grouping discussed includes those vessels with decorative underside treatments. Unfortunately, many of the Halicyae pieces are missing all or most of the underside, however those where analysis is possible are distinctly different from their Greek counterparts. Of the 8 vessels still retaining the centre point, 5 are undecorated, and the remaining 3 have a reserved central dot, a feature sometimes found in Corinthian style pieces and rarely in Attic style. More noticeable is the apparent absence of skyphoi with black glaze central dots, the most commonly used decorative element in both Attic and Corinthian style undersides. The primary difference, however, is the width and the placement of the circles. As previously mentioned, both Attic and Corinthian styles tended to use very thin circles. Occasionally wider circles are used in addition to the very thin circles, but these too are rarely more than moderately wide. None of Halicyae pieces have thin or very thin circles. One has circles so wide, that more of the underside is decorated than reserved. Circle placement is also an important component of underside decoration, and in this aspect 4 Halicyae pieces follow the Attic style trend of confining the decorative elements to the central portion of the underside. The majority, however, do not. Of particular interest is a vessel with four circles of differing widths, fairly evenly spaced across the surface (Figure 9). Again, this pattern is not found in Attic or Corinthian styles, and the use of more than 3 circles is very rare. Finally, the degree of precision used in the construction and decoration of the Halicyae pieces is highly variable. Rice (1987: 480) defines precision as ‘the dispersion of a set of measured values; the reproducibility of a technique.’ To examine precision, we recorded the presence/absence of defects in the following areas: decorative application, symmetry, foot trimming, wall trimming, underside trimming, visibility of wheel and/or rib-smoothing ridges, non-destructive cracks, wall and floor thickness, patchy glaze, bubbling in the glaze, drips/smears/smudges, nicks/ gauges, and misfiring. We found that 3 pieces contain no visible defects, 5 have 1 visible defect, 5 have 2 visible defects, 5 have 3 visible defects, 7 contain 4 visible defects, 3 pieces have 5 visible defects, and 6 have 6-10 visible defects. Through their research at the Athenian Agora, Sparkes, Talcott and Richter (1970: 17) conclude that ‘there is an indication that the Attic workshops differed from the others not in practice but in precision’. This well known precision is visible not only in the decoration of vessels, but in the consistent preparation, throwing, trimming, finishing and 101

SOMA 2009 firing of the clay. Of the 34 skyphoi analyzed for this project, only 4 (11.76%) exhibit the level of precision associated with Attic vessels found in the west. The clay itself was well purified before use, a time consuming process that removes impurities and leaves behind clay of a very fine, high quality fabric. The clay was also well wedged before it was thrown, a process necessary to remove air pockets, to insure that tempering agents (be they naturally occurring or added) are uniformly dispersed, and in general to make sure the clay is well mixed and consistent throughout, giving the potter a much better chance of producing a quality vessel quickly, as well as increasing the chances of successful firing. The visible wheel throwing ridges are close together and evenly spaced, indicating the high degree of technical expertise of the potter, as well as access to a sturdy, fast spinning wheel (R. Mazanowski, personal communication). The trimming, too, was well executed, resulting in highly symmetrical and well-formed feet (torus ring) with no visible trimming defects (Figure 10). Finally, the decorative elements are notable in their conformity to the Attic Style. Two have burnished miltos on the underside (1 does not and 1 is cannot be determined), a feature common to Attic vases, whereby a red ochre wash is applied to the vessel before decoration, enhancing the distinctive natural red colour of Attic clay. It is then burnished, which aligns and compacts the clay particles, resulting in a smooth shiny surface for decoration, and functionally strengthening the vessel (Hamer 1979; Schreiber 1999; Clark, Elston, and Hart 2002). The exterior of all 4 pieces shows attention was paid in the application of high-quality black glaze, which remains lustrous today. It was expertly applied solidly and consistently, leaving no visible defects such as drips, smudges or patchiness common to the other decorated pieces in the sample (Figure 11). While we acknowledge the fact that Greek potters, be they Attic, Corinthian, or any other, were not immune to the production of less-than-perfect vessels, one must question both the cost effectiveness of exporting sub-par products, as well as the availability of a foreign market for them (Sparkes, Talcott, and Richter 1970). We must also be cognizant of the fact that local potters were more than capable of producing imitations so skilfully as to be mistaken for imported vessels. For example, of seven samples of Attic black glaze pottery from Motya (classified based only on visual characteristics), only one was found to have had an Attic composition, with the majority most likely made locally (Jones and Garrigós 2004). Of the three Halicyae vessels discussed above, the use of miltos on two is the only element differentiating them visibly from the third. The importance of this distinction became clear when a sample of the third vessels was submitted for INAA and returned a result of location unknown – more than likely excluding Attica as its source. This is not to say that every Attic vessel has miltos and that all Attic style vessels without miltos were made outside of Attica. Masterful Attic imitations were produced in many

locations throughout the ‘Hellenized’ world, and it would appear that at least one of these ended up in Halicyae. What then, does all of this tell us about the Elymi reaction to Greek colonization? As previously discussed, only 4 of the 34 decorated sample pieces exclusively display characteristics of Attic style skyphoi, and none conform exclusively to the characteristics of Corinthian style skyphoi. The remaining pieces must be placed into the category of ‘other’; unique hybrids of style whose meaning remains unknown. The hybridization of Halicyae skyphoi styles follows the trend of earlier 7th- and 6th-century BC indigenous decoration that often juxtaposed ‘Greek or geometric motifs in an original and unconventional way[s]’. (Leighton 1999: 266) Given the established practice of style mixing, the presence of established local trade networks prior to our date range (6th and 3rd centuries BC), the paucity of imported and/or imitation pieces, and the social connotation of the cup to Greeks (discussed above), it seems improbable that the manufacture of the Greek hybrid vessels was due to commercial competition from the Greek colonists. Ceramic evidence of indigenous reactions to colonization has been studied in other areas of the ancient Greek world. In Italy, for example, the Etruscans adopted only the aspects of the Greek symposium that they could reconcile with their own customs, capitalizing on the ambiguity between Dionysus’ drinking and funerary spheres and resulting in the modification of sympotic vessels for use as ossuaries (Spivey and Squire 2004). In eastern Sicily, the Sikels adopted only wine drinking vessels, rejecting other Greek ceramic forms. It would seem, then, that material acculturation clearly does not preclude ethnic identity, and this reminds us of the complexity of the nature of our evidence for both acculturation and ethnicity.’ (Hodos 2000: 52-3) Indigenous Elymi ceramic production from western Sicily (including Halicyae) followed a pattern of intra-group trade that included ‘a nesting of exchange networks operating within a broader homogenous confederation of indigenous settlements.’ (Kolb and Speakman 2005: 802) The Greeks, on the other hand, had established a series of interdependent markets across the Mediterranean – a ‘global market’ of the ancient world. They were highly adept at modifying their wares to appeal to the tastes of their many customers, a clear example being the production of Etruscan shaped ceramics at the Nikosthenic workshop for the express purpose of distribution to a foreign market (Osborne 1996). Osborne (1996; 39) goes on to explain, ‘the pattern of distribution of pots is the more significant because the pots were not intrinsically valuable… the ways in which different places receive different

102

Lori Bratton and Michael J. Kolb: Colonization in Western Sicily: An Indigenous Response through Skyphoi Analysis shapes of pot and works by different painters cannot adequately be accounted for by models of exchange… which assume that all other goods move on the back of agricultural goods being exchanged to match local deficits with local surpluses.’ It is possible, then, that this strategy of producing pots for a specific market could have been employed by Greek colonists in western Sicily. Conversely, it could have been adopted by indigenous potters, whether for purely commercial reasons or as part of a wider political strategy. In spite of, or perhaps because of, its commonality, universal use and importance, pottery ‘was neither used nor made mindlessly…and it remains a very important indicator of the people by whom it was made, and for whom it was made, or who came to use it.’ (Boardman 2004: 150) Boardman (2004: 149) further argues that ‘its forms and decorations are wholly determined by and for the society for which it was made, and differences in shapes indicate differences in the needs of the people using it’. The highly distinctive nature of Greek pottery, for which we generally have tightly defined circumstances related to style, context, and chronology, makes it ideal for investigating these issues, and ‘consideration of the different element of each shape leads to certain general conclusions’ (Jones and Garrigós 2004; Sparkes, Talcott, and Richter 1970: 10). Rotroff (2006: 148) describes the change in indigenous ceramic production at Sardis after Hellenization as ‘evidence of both resistance and accommodation of these new masters’. Here, indigenous ceramics continued to be produced for some time despite the availability of Attic import and imitations. Eventually indigenous shapes were completely replaced by Greek, however the surface treatments of locally produced imitations deviated from the Greek norm of black. Instead, they were often red (the indigenous preference) or shades of brown, ‘as though the attempt to imitate traditional Greek black gloss was only half-hearted’ (Rotroff 2006: 149). This seems a more applicable scenario in our study, in that the locally made vessels far outnumber the Attic import/imitations, which were available via Greek colonies or Phoenician/ Carthaginian trade. Also, as discussed above, the precision was variable and generally below Attic standards, despite the ability for high quality production. Finally, the juxtaposition of two different Greek styles could be interpreted as an assertion of independence, as if to say ‘we will accept your presence, but we will do so in our own way.’ We cannot dismiss, however, the fact that the Greek skyphoi, modified as it was, replaced the indigenous drinking vessel. Boardman (2004: 161) points out the fact that copying is a form of compliment, and ‘in such a popular and ubiquitous craft as pottery’, it can provide insight to the social character of both the producers and consumers and copied goods. It is doubtful that production of an object would have occurred if there was no one to buy or

use it, so the replacement of indigenous forms with Greek forms indicates some level of adoption and acceptance of Greek culture by the Elymi. The question of how the Elymi reacted to Greek colonization has yet to be fully answered, and this paper explores only a fragment of the work still to be done. Indeed, this paper is but a small part of a larger research project currently underway. Our goal is not necessarily to answer the question posed above, but to add a piece to the puzzle that is our understanding of these complex and enigmatic peoples we call the Elymi. Acknowledgements This research was undertaken under in technical-scientific collaboration with the Area Soprintdenza BB.CC.AA. of Trapni, Sporintendente Arch. Giuseppe Gini, Director of Archaeological Services, Dr. Roseela Giglio (Regione Sicilana- Assessorato BB.CC.AA. e P.I, Dipartimentao BB.CC.AA. ed E.P., U.O. X, prot. N. 33357/08). Northern Illinois University’s Research and Artistry fund, and the External Programming Archaeological Field School funded this research. A special thanks goes to Dr. Pierfrancesco Vecchio who helped in the ceramic identification and sorting. Our work would not be possible without the dedication and assistance of our Salemi associates: Nicòla Spagnolo, Salvatore Cassa, Baldo Terranova, Ninno Bascone, Antonello Puma, Vito Scalisi, and former Mayor Luigi Crimi. Bibliography Benjamin, S. (2006) Sicily: three thousand years of human history. Hanover, Steerforth Press. Boardman, J. (2001a) Greeks in Syria: pots and people. IN: Tsetskladze, G.R. and A.M. Snodgrass eds., Greek settlements in the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea Oxford, British Archaeological Record, 1-16. Boardman, J. (2001b) Aspects of “Colonization” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 322, 3342. Boardman, J. (2001c) History of Greek vases: potters, painters and pictures. London, Thames and Hudson. Boardman, J. (2004) Copies of pottery: by and for whom? IN: Lomas, K. ed., Greek identity in the western Mediterranean: papers in honour of Brian Shefton Boston, Brill, 149-62. Clark, A. J., Elston, M. and M.L. Hart. (2002) Understanding Greek vases Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum. De Angelis, S. F. (2003) Equations of culture: The meeting of natives and Greeks in Sicily (ca. 750-450 BC). Ancient West and East 2, 19–50. De Vido, S. (1997) Gli Elimi: storie di contatti e di rappresentaziono, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore. Dietler, M. (1990) Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of Early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 9, 352-406.

103

SOMA 2009 Finley, M. I., Smith, D.M., and C. Duggan. (1986) A History of Sicily, London, Chatto & Windus. Hall, J. M. (2002) Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Hamer, F. (1979) The potter’s dictionary of materials and techniques, London, Pitman Publishing. Hodos, T. (2000) Wine wares in protohistoric eastern Sicily. IN: Smith, C. and J. Serrati eds, Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: new approaches in archaeology and history, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 41-54. Holtorf, C. (2002) Notes on the life history of a pot sherd Journal of Material Culture, 7 (1), 49-71. Jones, R. and J.B. Garrigós. (2004) The identity of early Greek pottery in Italy and Spain. IN: Lomas, K. ed., Greek identitiy in the western Mediterranean: papers in honour of Brian Shefton, Boston, Brill, 149-162. Kolb, M. J. and R. J. Speakman. (2005) Elymian regional interaction in Iron Age western Sicily: a priliminary neutron activation study of incised/impressed tablewares. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 795-804. Kolb, M. J., Vecchio, P. and C. Tyers. (2007) The lost settlement of Halikyai and excavations at Cappasanta, Salemi, Sicily. IN: M. Fitzjohn ed., Uplands of Ancient Sicily and Calabria: the Archaeology of Landscape Revisited. London, Accordia Press, 197-208. La Rosa, I. (1996) The impact of the Greek colonists on the non-Hellenic inhabitants of Sicily. IN: G. Pugliese Carratelli ed., The Western Greeks. London, Thames and Hudson, 523–32. Leighton, R. (1999) Sicily before history: an archaeological survey from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Moore, M. B. (1997) Attic-Figures and White-Ground Pottery The Athenian Agora, 30, iii-ix; xi-xvi; ii; 1-3; 5-77; 79-357; 359-67; 369-87; 389-91; 393-99; 40119. Morris, I., T. Jackman, E. Blake and S. Tusa. (2001) Stanford University excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily, I: preliminary report on the 2000 season MAAR, 46, 253-71. Morris, I., T. Jackman, E. Blake and S. Tusa. (2002) Stanford University excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily, II: preliminary report on the 2001 Season MAAR, 47, 153-98. Morris, I., T. Jackman, E. Blake, B. Garnand and S. Tusa. (2003) Stanford University excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily III: preliminary report on the 2002 season MAAR, 48, 243-315. Oakley, J.H. (1979) A fragmentary skyphos by the Affecter Hesperia, 48(4), 393-6.

Osborne, R. (1996) Pots, trade and the archaic Greek economy Antiquity, 70, 31-44. Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1996) The Western Greeks London, Thames and Hudson. Rice, P.M. (1987) Pottery Analysis. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Rotroff, S. I. (1997) Hellenistic pottery Athenian and imported wheelmade table ware and related material. Part 1: Text. The Athenian Agora, 29, iii-v; vii-ix; xixv; xvii-xxxvi; ii; 1; 3-79; 81; 83-217; 219; 221-237; 239-427; 429; 431-473; 475; 477-487; 489-574. Rotroff, S.I. (2006) Material culture. IN: Bugh, G.R. ed., The Cambridge companion to the Hellenistic world, New York,Cambridge University Press, 136-57. Schreiber, T. (1999) Athenian vase construction : a potter's analysis Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum. Seratti, J. (2000) Sicily from pre-Greek times to the fourth century. IN: Smith, C. and J. Serrati eds, Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: new approaches in archaeology and history, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 9-14. Sparkes, B.A., L. Talcott and G.M.A. Richter. (1970) Black and plain pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C. part 1: text. The Athenian Agora, 12, ii-v+viiix+xi-xix+1-382. Spatafora, F. (1996) Gli Elimi e l’Eta del Ferro nella Sicilia occidentale. IN: Leighton, R. ed., Early societies in Sicily, New developments in archaeological research, London, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 5, 155– 65. Spivey, N. and M. Squire. (2004) Panorama of the classical world. London, Thames and Hudson Ltd. Tilley, C. (1999) Why things matter: some theses on material forms, mind and body. IN: Gustafsson, A. and H. Karlsson eds., Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh, Göteborg, University of Göteborg, Institute of Archaeology, 315-339. Tusa, S. (1992) La ‘Problematica Elima’ e testimonianze archeologiche da Marsala, Paceco, Trapani e Buseto Palizzolo. Sicilia Archeologica 25:71-102. Tusa, S. (1994) Sicilia Preistorica. Palermo, Dario Flaccovio Editore. Tusa, S. (1997) Origine della soceita agro-pastorale. Prima Sicilia:173-9. Vecchio, P., Kolb, M. J., and Mammina G. (2003). Tracces di un insediamento del IV secolo a.C. a Salemi (TP). Sicilia Archeologica 101:114-121. Contributors [email protected] [email protected]

104

Lori Bratton and Michael J. Kolb: Colonization in Western Sicily: An Indigenous Response through Skyphoi Analysis

Figure 2a Example of a Corinthian style flaring ring foot.

Figure 2b Example of an Attic style torus ring foot.

Figure 3 Examples of Attic style exterior decoration: a) solid black glaze, b) black glaze with a reserved foot.

Figure 4 Examples of Corinthian style exterior decoration: a) reserved band with vertical lines, b) reserved band with vertical rays, c) no decoration, d) reserved band with cross hatching.

Figure 5a Examples of Attic style underside treatments.

Figure 5b Examples of Corinthian style underside treatments. 105

SOMA 2009

Figure 6 Hybrid Halicyae skyphos with a molded torus ring foot and modified Corinthian exterior decoration.

Figure 7 Halicyae skyphos with a ‘classic’ torus ring foot on one side and a torus ring with upper flaring portion on the other. Also visible are trimming defects and rib smoothing ridges.

Figure 8 “Frankenstein” Halicyae hybrid skyphos, with the body disproportionate to the foot, and an outward angled torus ring foot seemingly set on top of a flaring ring foot.

Figure 10 Halicyae skyphos with Attic features.

Figure 9 Halicyae hybrid skyphos with unusual underside decorative scheme.

Figure 11 Examples of the variable precision found with Halicyae skyphoi: a) Halicyae skyphos with Attic features (including miltos wash) and precision construction, b) Halicyae skyphos with Attic features 106

Ornamental Architectural Pieces from the Karaman Citadel İ. Mete Mimiroğlu and Murat Karademir Department of Art History, Faculty of Literature, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

After the Malazgirt victory in 1071, Karaman became one of the important places to fall under Turkish domination in Anatolia. Karaman, attached to the lands of Seljuk (Temizsoy and Uysal 1987: 9), was afterwards given as a present to the Karamanoğlu Karaman Bey by Sultan I. İzzeddin Keykavus in exchange for his services to the Seljuks (İbni Bibi 1941:290). In 1243, with the Kösedağ War, the Anatolian Seljuk State broke up and central authority destroyed in Anatolia and different regions began to claim their independence. One of the most important regions to do this was Karamanoğulları (Turan 1984: 642). Having not accepted Moğol favours, Karamanoğulları announced its independence in the Mehmed Bey period and wrested Karaman from the Moğols (Şikari 1946: 50). Considering themselves as the major heirs of the Seljuks after the collapse of the Anatolia Seljuk state, Karamanoğulları became one of the largest regions of Anatolia by further strengthening itself after the Moğol retreat from Anatolia, becoming eventually a neighbour of the Ottomans (Gökbilgin 1968: 32).

developments in detail He reports that Gedik Ahmet Paşa destroyed the palace of Karamanoğlu Kasım Bey and then rebuilt the citadel in part. Five mosques with Alaaddin, four Moslem theological schools and 33 prayer rooms were demolished and the stones reused in the castle’s reconstruction. The Mosque Sultan, Mosque Kaşi, Karamanşah, Mosque Kabir, Mosque Hasan Basri, the Ak Prayer room and Nizamşah Prayer room were some of the structures demolished (Şikari 2005: 181).

In the 14th and 15th centuries, competition for domination in Anatolia caused frequent struggles between Karamanoğulları and Ottoman Beylic. Wishing to crush Karamaoğlu Beylic, Fatih Sultan Mehmet captured the city by ejecting Gedik Ahmet Paşa. Where today’s citadel is located is considered to be the earliest quarter of the settlement. Although it is not known for certain yet that there was an earlier castle on the site, the evidence from other Anatolia cities suggests the presence of fortifications from Roman or Byzantine times, given the strategic position the location.

Karaman castle consists of three parts; bailey, middle castle and citadel. Although there are traces of the bailey they are inaccessible today. Pazar Kapısı is located in the south and west aspect of what was the middle castle, which is thought to have survived up to the middle of the 20th century but was then demolished by the works of the Karaman Municipality between 1988-91 (Dülgerler 2006: 247).

After coming under the domination of the Seljuks, planning activities began in Karaman itself. Karaman castle was reconstructed and new structures built, such as mosque, prayer room and Moslem theological school (Uysal et al. 1992: 515). It is known that developments to the castle gained intensity under Sultan II Kılıç Arslan (1156-1187) and I. Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev (1187-1196) (Önge 1969: 8). The main development of the city began in the period of Karamanoğulları authority after the Seljuks. During its period as capital of the Karamanoğulları Beylic, the city was further enlarged. Unfortunately the leader of the Ottoman Army, Gedik Ahmet Paşa, damaged many important structures in the city centre while capturing Karaman in 1467-1468, including the castle itself; however following the capture he had the building repaired, using material from other structures from the immediate area (Konyalı 1967: 167). An important source of 16th-century knowledge, Karamanname of Şikari, mentions some of the city’s

Another important source referring to the castle is Seyahatname Evliya Çelebi, who came to Karaman in 1648. Karaman castle is mentioned comprehensively. Evliya Çelebi states that in the vicinity of the citadel there were 600 steps and the castle with eight towers has a deep ditch. Çelebi, who wrote that one could enter the citadel only from one door in the west wall, explains, among other details, that there were Esma-i Hüsna inscriptions on the walls, two sections of the main doorway, and 46 residences located in castle (Evliya Çelebi 1971: 183).

In the citadel itself, which became derelict in the Republic, restorations and excavations have been going on since 1963. During these excavations five bronze cannonballs were found and are now displayed today in the Istanbul Military Museum and the Karaman Archaeological Museum. After the restorations the citadel was used for social and recreational events (Konyalı 1967: 177). Of the large ditch said to be in front of the citadel there is no trace today. Other sections of the castle are due to be renovated in the near future. The citadel is also important in terms of its architectural features, ornamentation, and inscriptions; many were reused in Ottoman-period building. It is not exactly known from which structures these fragments originated; some were randomly inserted into the walls of the castle, especially the entrance. Some of the inscriptions have been examined in detail, but the architectural features have not been fully studied. In examinations done within the context of this work, 248 architectural details were noted on the citadel’s walls. These pieces, including botanic and geometric motifs, as

107

SOMA 2009 well as inscriptions, are found in a variety of uses, such as portals, friezes and muqarnas, as well as gravestones.

monumental entrances of Anadolu Selçuklu and Karaman structures, were doorway or gate pieces.

The aim of this paper is to draw further attention these architectural features that appear on the citadel walls.

Architectural fragments showing Zencerek motifs comprise the 7th grouping, of which there are 31 examples. Mostly these designs are technically crude but some examples feature high-quality workmanship. Mostly the mouldings are used horizontally but some are featured corner pieces.

In this context, in 2008, the ornamental architecture pieces were photographed and attempt was made at an exact enumeration. In addition some ornamental pieces were analyzed. As a consequence of our work, these Islamic-period pieces located in the citadel were evaluated in eight different groups.

Of the remaining pieces not featured in the above groupings there is a collection of miscellaneous fragments that can be classified into various categories of an 8th grouping.

The first group featured a style of protuberances classified as ‘hobnails’ (‘gofferings’). Those appearing in the entrance and east aspect are broken. The surfaces are covered with six-armed stars and elaborate geometrical designs, including that hexagons.

There are 13 pieces with geometric diamond motifs and 20 pieces displaying other geometric shapes. The designs on these pieces include broken line systems and geometric compositions that vary between simple and complex geometrical ornamentation. It is thought from the mostly large dimensions of these pieces that they are mostly portal fragments.

The second grouping is classified as ‘belt pieces’. There are 10 in number, and although some of the surfaces are undecorated, others have writing cestuses. Some pieces have ‘Julian’ patterns with writing. Many pieces have subsections enlivened with grooves. It is thought that these pieces, nearly all with the same measurements, may have come from the same structure.

There are a further eight pieces of mixed, plainer style featuring, inter alia, rosette and palmate motifs. There are 21 examples of irregular-sized pieces with mixed decorative zones, sometimes belts or free form. These usually display palmate, ‘Julian’ and convoluted branch work motifs. 36 fragments of functional pieces (muqarnas, bands, edge stones) display only simple floral decorations.

‘Belt pediments’, found only at the entrance to the citadel, comprise the third grouping. The pediments include various compositional motifs including ‘Julian’ and ‘palmate’. It is possible that the pieces, found nowhere else in the castle, may have been taken from a monumental mosque.

The Karaman museum holds some further pieces that originated from the citadel. These include portal pieces, mouldings with Zencerek motifs and Şahides. It is assumed that these pieces, not listed in the inventories, were collected during works done over different periods.

‘Architectural pieces with inscriptions’ comprise our fourth grouping. These 50 pieces were used intensively in the citadel’s north wall and entrance. These pieces include some vesicles of the Koran in an inscribed form, such as the El-Fetih section. It is interesting that pieces were placed casually and sometimes reversed, despite the fact that they include sections from the Koran. It is not possible to tell at the moment from which structures these inscriptions came (Türkmen 2003: 48).

Examining the many different technical and design characteristic of these ornamental architecture pieces from the Karaman citadel, we can, as Şikari wrote, only imagine the enormous level of local destruction brought about by Gedik Ahmet Paşa and the consequent rebuilt citadel that incorporated so many architectural features from so many destroyed buildings.

‘Gravestones and Şahides’ comprise the fifth grouping; 25 were found in the castle. These pieces were arranged in such a way that the fragments of the sarcophaguses mostly display the identity cartouches of the deceased. On some of these pieces, from the Karamanoğulları period, in terms of shape and style, there are Sütunces on suitable smooth areas at the base continuing into haloclines. Some pieces display Zencerek motifs, for example the distinctive ‘candle’, geometric, and floral decorations. Some examples are formed into attractive ‘quilt’ patterns, especially at the castle’s east aspect, arranged horizontally.

Although the pieces seem to have been selected randomly for the castle walls, it is clear that they were intensely used intensely at the citadel’s entrance and the north and east aspects. For the middle castle most of the pieces used were from the Antique and Byzantine periods, 248 fragments belong to the Islamic period. Inscriptions were not often used for northerly aspects and most ornamental pieces were preferred for the entrance. In pieces selected for the citadel door, symmetry was created by choosing similar examples and placing them harmoniously. All the detail seen at the entrance aspect gives rise to the thought that although the pieces were often used irregularly the intention was to impress those entering the citadel.

Bulky rectangular fragments, 25 in total, make up the 6th grouping. Often their borders have cuspidate arched niches decorated with botanical ornamentation. There are also examples of cuspidate belts, although these rarely feature floral motifs. It is thought that these styles, often found on

These particular fragments have many floral decorations, which we attempted to photograph and study in their entirety, including intensely used palmates, ‘Julian’ and convoluted branch motifs, executed with considerable quality and skill. Palmate and ‘Julian’ decorations are 108

İ. Mete Mimiroğlu and Murat Karademir: Ornamental Architectural Pieces from the Karaman Citadel among the most commonly used motifs for nearly all periods of Turkish adornment art, and it is possible to classify them by period characteristics, technique, scheme, and skill of the craftsman. Mention should be made of the lotus motif that was also sometimes included with the palmate and ‘Julian’. At the Karaman citadel we can see a beautiful example of botanic adornment from our 3rd grouping on the frontal zone. The composition here includes a surface backfill deriving from palmate and ‘Julian’. Cuspidate ‘Julian’ forms fill the field and link with palmates and convolution branches. A similar example can be seen at Bursa in the Yeşil Cami, one of the most important structures of Early Ottoman architecture, dating to 1419 (Ayverdi 1972: 94). The ‘Julians’ in the frontals of Yeşil Camii are sectional and infilled with other designs. These motifs, which are botanically based, can be seen in the rectangular pieces having sectional and belted niches referred to in grouping 6. In these pieces three sectional palmates are involved. Simalar pieces can be seen in the İbrahim Bey İmareti (dated 1432) in Karaman city centre (Denktaş 2000: 23); on the large panels of the fountain there are three sectional palmates. Additionally, at Karaman’s İbrahim Bey Cupola there are palmates, ‘Julians’, and convoluted branches (Karpuz 2009: 29). Various geometric styles also appear. They can be seen in the 1st grouping (‘hobnails’), the 7th grouping (Zencerek motifs), and the ‘diamond’ pattern in grouping 8 (category 1) and the mixed style of grouping 8 (category 2). In the pieces researched, most of Zencerek motifs were engraved. Zencerek motifs decorate the sides of window jambs and there are other fragments in deeper and shallower relief. Parallels can be seen in Ermenek’s Tol Medress monumental portal.

Similar examples of the circle motif from the 3rd third category of grouping 8 can be seen in Karaman’s Arapzade Camii, where two lines appear on an ornamental section of a belt portal (Diez et al. 1950: 37-8). Consequently, the reused pieces in the inner castle of Karaman are rich in terms of quantity and quality, and although research to date has been unsuccessful in confirming their provenances, it has been thought valuable to bring the assemblage once more to notice. As well as an art historical significance, the fragments record a further chapter of the Ottoman-Karaman struggle. Bibliography Ayverdi, E.H. 1972. ‘Bursa Yeşil Cami’, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806/855 (1403-1451), 94-5, İstanbul. Denktaş, M. 2000. Karaman Çeşmeleri, Kayseri. Diez, E., Aslanapa, O. and Koman, M.M. 1950. Karaman Devri Sanatı, İstanbul. Dülgerler, O.N. 2006. Karamanoğulları Dönemi Mimarisi, Ankara. Evliya Çelebi 1970. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, İstanbul. Gökbilgin, M.T. 1968. ‘XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakfı ve Müesseleri’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 7, 29-38, İstanbul. İbni Bibi 1941. Anadolu Selçuki Devleti Tarihi, Ankara. Karpuz, H. 2009. Karaman Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri, Ankara. Konyalı, İ.H. 1962. Karaman Tarihi, İstanbul. Önge, Y. 1969. ‘Karaman Kalesi’, Önasya, 46, Ankara, 8-9. Şikari 1946. Karamanoğulları Tarihi, Konya. Temizsoy, İ. and Uysal, V. 1981. Karaman, Konya. Türkmen, K. 2003. ‘Karaman Kalesi İnşaatında Kullanılan Taş Kitabeler’, 7. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı Sonuçları ve Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 48-51, İstanbul.

109

SOMA 2009

Fig 1. View of Karaman Castle (May 1905)

Fig 2. View of Karaman Castle (2009)

Fig 3. Plan of Karaman Castle (O.N. Dülgerler)

110

İ. Mete Mimiroğlu and Murat Karademir: Ornamental Architectural Pieces from the Karaman Citadel

Fig 4. Karaman Castle wall showing architectural fragments

Fig 6. Arc fragments

Fig 5. Gofferings

111

SOMA 2009

Fig 7. Fronton of arc

Fig 8. Portal fragments

112

İ. Mete Mimiroğlu and Murat Karademir: Ornamental Architectural Pieces from the Karaman Citadel

Fig 9. Zencerek motifs

Fig 11. Various geometric motifs

Fig 10. Diamond motifs

Fig 12. Composite geometric and floral motifs 113

SOMA 2009

Fig 13. Floral motifs

114

A Group of Red Slip Ware from the Akşehir Museum Mehmet Tekocak and Volkan Yıldız Department of Archaeology, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey In this study, 23 Roman Red Slip Ware vessels of several forms of ceramics from the collection of the Akşehir museum were analysed. The origins of the artefacts purchased for the museum at various dates are unfortunately indefinite. As a result of the analysis undertaken in 2008, the Red Slip Wares from the workshops of different regions such as Eastern Sigillata A, Italian Sigillata, Cypriot Sigillata and Sagalassos Red Slip Wares, which were popular in the Eastern Mediterranean countries during Roman Period, were determined in the museum. Through a detailed study it was seen that some of these artefacts had a great resemblance to the samples from the workshops mentioned above, while some others were lowquality wares, having partial resemblance in form and slip. It should be mentioned that these low-quality wares are more like imitations from local workshops than the lowquality products of the original workshops. However, the uncertainty of the find places and origins of the artefacts examined prevent us from making clear judgements. Therefore we decided that including these imitation vases into the general groups accepted in the literature would be appropriate and we classified all the vases under their own groups. Among the Roman Period Red Slip Wares from the museum collection, samples from Eastern Sigillata A Group are the common. The earliest samples are from this group.1 1. Eastern Sigillata A2 Eight different forms were determined from this group, six of which are open pots (such as plates or bowls) and two are closed pots (jugs). There are four samples of Form 1, one sample of Form 2, four samples of Form 3, two samples of Form 4, four samples of Form 5, one sample of Form 6, one sample of Form 7 and one sample of Form 8 (Graph 8). Examining these samples concerning slip and form, it was seen that samples from Form 2, 3 and 4 are original high-quality products while the others are the second group of imitation pots with low-quality slip. We would like to emphasize a few important points for the ESAs from the second group and mention the elements differentiating them from the imported highquality products. First of all, the slips of these artefacts were applied carelessly in a thin line with watery and weak material and this caused the slips to be low quality. The pots were left as they were without any corrections after   While dating the artefacts, we used the dates of the samples of the groups they belong to as a reference. The most important reason for doing this was that the origins of the artefacts in the museum are uncertain. This forced us to date them by analogy. 2   While classifying the artefacts examined in this study, we chose to indicate our form number for each form of the group first, and then the form numbers known and accepted in the literature in parenthesis. 1

the slip was applied in dipping technique. As a result there were leaks on the surface. Another point is that in some forms such as Forms 1, 6 and 7, the unseen parts of the pots had no slip, which is unusual in the ESAs accepted as original or imported. This point is highly significant as it is a proof supporting our claim that imitations of the samples from the workshops producing this popular group of wares were made by local workshops. We classified the service wares into two groups related to the materials served in them. A. Food Service Ware Forms in this group are luxurious service ware, such as plates and bowls with a rich repertoire of forms used for serving food and fruits. There are three forms among the ESAs of the Akşehir museum that can be classified in this group. Form 1 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 70-225; Fig. 3.1) Plate (Imitation Kenyon Form 1, Hama Form 1, Hayes Form 2-4, Slane Type 13). There are four samples of this form in the museum. It has flat rim extending upwards and a low ring base. There is an intense layer of limestone on the surface. The interior is cleaner. On the inner surface there are three grooves at the centre. On the bottom surface under the base there is a circle shape expanding outwards. Reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6) clay is hard, has no pores and contains thin mica. The slip applied, in dipping technique, is reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6) and contains a little silver mica. The colour of the slip is diverse. The plates in this group are generally large. However it was seen that all plates in this form in the museum collection are small in size. This raises the question why are these plates, which were usually produced in big sizes as used in feasts, small? Were these wares produced as grave goods or for serving food different from that served in other similar forms? It is not possible for now to reach a conclusion.3 Form 1 is one of the common plate forms used since the first appearance of ESAs, i.e. the mid-2nd century B.C., and it survives nearly until the end of the 1st century A.D. (Cornell 1980: 57; Kenyon 1957: 309; Lapp 1961: 253-254; Zoroğlu 1986: 76; Yıldız 2006: 26-27). The quality of the slip and the small sizes of the plates point out that our samples were probably of the late 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D. Form 2 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 85-5; Fig. 3.2) Bowl (Kenyon Form 2, Hama Form 2, Hayes Form 5a-b-14,   The possibility that Form 1 was used as a grave good cannot yet be verified; we consider it appropriate to evaluate these artefacts under food service pots as accepted in the literature until there is more concrete evidence on this subject. 3

115

SOMA 2009 Slane 14a-b-15). The rim is inturned and rounded; the bowl is deep, has a hemispherical body and low ring base. The outer surface of the base at the centre is convexprofiled in the shape of steps and the inner surface has two irregular grooves at the centre. The reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8) clay is hard, poreless, and contains some coarse grained limestone. The slip applied in double dipping technique is red (10 R 4/8) and shiny. There is a layer of limestone inside and outside the bowl. The one example in the Akşehir museum (Form 2) is dated to the 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D. as accepted in the literature. Form 3 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 895; Fig. 3.3) Plate (Kenyon Form 7, Hama Form 7, Hayes Form 57-60). It has horizontal edges extending outwards, a concave body and a flat bottom. The traces of the wheel can be seen on the bottom surface. The light red (2.5 YR 6/8) clay is hard, poreless and contains some small and coarse grained limestone and silver mica. The slip applied in dipping technique is red (2.5 YR 5/8) and has silver mica. Some parts of the slip have peeled. There are some large pores on the outer surface from limestone bursts. The midImperial period is generally accepted as the production dates of these plates and we therefore date the sample in the Akşehir museum to the same period. B. Drink Service Wares and Oil Pots Besides the pots for food service, there are drink service and oil pots in the form of deep and narrow bowls and jugs. Among the ESAs from the Akşehir museum, Form 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 belong to this group. Form 4 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 73-130; Fig. 3.4) Bowl (Kenyon Form 15, Hama Form 15, Hayes Form 13b). The rim slightly extends outwards and upwards at right angle, the body is bent and has a wide ring base. The pink (7.5 YR 8/4) clay is hard and has no pores. The red (10 R 4/8) slip has mostly peeled off. This type of bowls was produced between 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. (Hama: 113; Hayes 1985: 20; Kenyon 1957: 306-309, 347). The same dates are also valid for our sample. Form 5 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 73-128; Fig. 3.5) Bowl (Imitation Kenyon Form 17, Hama Form 17, Hayes Form 21-23, Slane Type 25). The rim extending upwards at right angle is slightly thickened, the body is a little deeper than a hemisphere and the base is high and ring-shaped. The base of the bowl is thickened outside. The bottom surface of the base has a slight groove. Inside the bowl, there are two lines of roulette decoration not so deep. The clay generally reddish yellow (7.5 YR 7/6) contains silver mica, quartz and grains of limestone. The dominating colour in the slip applied in single dipping technique is brick red (2.5 YR 4/6) and the slip is thin and shiny. The colour of the slip varies in tone. There are four samples of Form 5 and we date them to the 1st century A.D. in terms of similar samples elsewhere (Lapp 1961: 37, tip. 25, 2a; Robinson 1959: 22; Yıldız 2006: 31-32).

Form 6 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 70-21; Fig. 3.6) Bowl (Imitation Hayes Form 61). The rim of the bowl is rounded and there is a sharp curve from the rim to the body; it has a high ring base. Vertical strap handles are attached to the rim. There are some layers of limestone on the surface. The reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6) clay contains silver mica and grains of limestone. There is no slip on the bottom part of the bowl and on the base. The slip inside and on the upper body outside is applied carelessly in single dipping technique as a thin layer is reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8). These bowls are the late examples of Eastern Sigillatas and dated to the 2nd century A.D.4 We suggest the same date for the bowl that is the sole example in the Akşehir museum. Form 7 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 70-104; Fig. 4.1) Jug (Imitation Kenyon Form 25, Hama Form 25, Hayes Form 101-117, Slane Type 36b). The rim slopes outwards; the jug has a long cylindrical neck, globular body and a low ring base. The traces of the wheel can be clearly seen on the surface. There are silver mica, quartz and grains of limestone in the reddish yellow (7.5 YR 8/6) clay. There is no slip on the lower body and on the base. The slip where applied is thin and reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6). Similar forms are said to be produced in the 1st century B.C.5 Therefore we can suggest this same date for our vase. Form 8 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 70-122; Fig. 4.2) Jug (Imitation Kenyon Form 26, Hama Form 26, Hayes Form 101-117, Slane Type 36b). It has a round profiled rim, a concave cylindrical neck, a bulky globular body, a ring base and vertical strap handles. Handles are attached to the neck and the upper body. There is a single groove in the middle of the outer surface of the handles. There is a small spout hole on the body where the spout disappeared. There is a filter with one hole at the centre and five holes around where the neck and the body connect inside. The reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6) clay is hard, poreless and contains silver mica. The reddish yellow-light red (varying from 5 YR 6/8 to 2.5 YR 6/6) soap-like slip on orange red, reddish brown and blackish tones has peeled off in some parts. This jug should also be dated to the 1st century B.C. 2. Imitation North Italian Sigillata? We have found it appropriate to examine this single artefact in the museum under this category because of the great similarity in general form, even if it has handles and it is different in rim profile. The colour and the quality of the slip are the other elements suggesting that this artefact might be an imitation.   This form was discovered in surface analysis of the Nicosia and Soli necropolises. For detailed information on the form, see Hayes 1985: 40. 5   Especially because of the neck and body forms, two different form numbers were attributed to the single handled jugs, which were the only known closed vases within the ESA group. Form 7 (Kenyon, Hama Form 25) has a long neck, while Form 8 (Kenyon, Hama Form 26) has a shorter neck. Regardless of the size of their necks, both types generally have oval, globular or oblate bodies; this associates them to the lagynos. For detailed information on this form, see Jones 1950: 175, 234, fig. 189 A; 183, No. 512, fig. 145; Kenyon 1957: 340; Zoroğlu 1986: 93; Yıldız 2006: 35-36. 4

116

Mehmet Tekocak and Volkan Yıldız: A Group of Red Slip Ware from the Akşehir Museum Form 1 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 70-214; Fig. 5.2) Small Bowl (Dragendorff Form 35 Type A). The rim is turned outwards and slopes downwards, the body is convex and it has a ring base. There is a single groove on the upper part of the rim inside, on the transition to the body. There is also a single groove at the edge of the rim. There is a spiral or lotus shaped decoration on the moulded handles that were attached afterwards. This decoration is quite artificial and simply drawn. The reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6) clay is hard, poreless and contains limestone, grains of sand and silver mica. The colour of the slip, better inside, is light red (2.5 YR 6/8) and varies from brick red to reddish brown outside. There are a lot of pores on the outer surface of the bowl. The general form of this bowl is quite similar to Northern Italian Sigillata Dragendorff Form 35 Type A.6 The most significant difference is the moulded handles and the grooves at the edge of the rim and on the upper part of the rim inside, on the transition to the body. Similar moulded handles with decorations are seen in the samples of Sagalassos. There is an Imitation Sagalassos Red Slip plate in the museum with such decorated handles.7 Concerning the original samples of Italian Sigillatas and the similar imitation Sagalassos Form 2 in the museum, we can date this artefact to the 1st to 2nd centuries A.D. (Saracino 1985: 207). 3. Imitation Sagalassos Red Slip Ware Only two samples similar to the products of this workshop produced in a close region to central Anatolia and known to have a wide distribution area were determined in the museum. Even though Sagalassos is a production centre quite close to the Akşehir museum, it was noticeable that there are a few original or imitation products from this workshop in the museum collection. Form 1 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 894; Fig. 5.1) Small Bowl (Probably Imitation Poblome Variant 1B162). There is a single sample in the museum. The rim extends horizontally outwards; it has a convex body, a low ring base and horizontal handles attached to the body. There is a single groove on the upper surface of the rim and the transition part from the rim to the body is profiled. There are grooves on the tondo. Similarly, there is a single groove in the shape of a circle on the outer surface of the base and a small groove at the centre. The light red (2.5 YR 7/6) clay is hard and poreless. The colour of the slip is red (10 R 5/8). A quite similar example to this form is among Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. It was suggested that there is a parallel between Variant 1B162 found in Sagallasos and dated to the mid-Augustan period and the samples of Italian Sigillata Form 11 (Waelkens, Poblome 1997: 448; Poblome 1999: 291, fig. 27, 1). The small bowl in the Akşehir museum is probably from the same period as the Sagalassos items.

  Saracino 1985, Tav. LXVI, 5-9. Example number 5 is highly similar to our artefact. 7   See, Imitation Sagalassos Red Slip Ware Form 2.

Form 2 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 07-87; Fig. 5.3) Dish (Imitation). The wide rim is turned outwards and slightly extends downwards. The upper surface of the rim is convex-profiled and has deep and wide groove at the edge. The dish has a low ring base. The handles were attached afterwards, i.e. first the dish was shaped on the wheel and then the decorated handles, moulded separately, were attached (barbotine technique). This is distinct on the outer surface of the pot. There are spiral, square, pearl string and simple leave decorations on the handles. In the middle there is a deep rectangular shape. The rim profile lost its curve where the handles and the body connect. Light red (2.5 YR 6/6) clay is hard, poreless and contains grains of limestone. The slip applied in dipping technique is light red (2.5 YR 6/6) outside and light and dark reddish grey (2.5 YR 4/1) inside. There are leaks of the slip on the outer surface. Some parts are peeled off. The profile of the rim is similar to Poblome Variant 1C132 (Poblome 1991: fig.56.), however, the form of the body is different. In other words, we could not find any similar ones in profile. The most significant similarity to Sagalassos examples are the moulded and decorated handles attached to the body afterwards.8 Despite the similarities, we had some doubts that this dish is a little different from the original Sagalassos products both in its general profile and also the quality and the colour of its slip. We accept this dish, the origin of which is uncertain, as an imitation and suggest the same date as the similar examples, which were quite popular during the second half of the 1st century A.D., and commonly used until the 3rd century A.D. (Poblome 1999: 308). 4. Cypriot Sigillata We determined a single sample of Cypriot Sigillata from the Roman period Red Slip Ware during our studies in the Akşehir museum. The general characteristics of the form, craftsmanship, and quality of the slip suggest that this sample is an original imported Cypriot Sigillata. Form 1 (Akşehir Mus. Inv. No: 07-81; Fig. 5.4) Krater (Hayes 1985 EEA Form P37 ve X38) (Hayes 1985: 87-88, Tav. XXI, fig.1-2). The rim is turned outwards and slightly extended downwards. There is a single groove on the upper and outer surfaces of the rim. It has a thick convex neck, globular body and a base in astragal shape. There is a sharp line where the neck and the body connect, and a roulette decoration on the body composed of single, or double, small triangles in three separate rows. There are two lines of shallow grooves on the astragal base. The red (2.5 YR 5/6) slip is hard, poreless and contains thin-grained limestone. The soap-like slip applied in dipping technique is in better quality outside and has a multicoloured look varying from orange to brick red. It is mostly brick-red inside. In his first study introducing Cypriot Sigillatas, Hayes codes similar samples to ours as Form 1A and Form 1B (Hayes 1967: 66, 67, 69, fig. a p.), and in a later study he defines the same

6

  For the Sagalassos handle examples, see Poblome 1999: 179-180, fig.84. 8

117

SOMA 2009 samples as Form P37 and a later version, bigger in size, as Form X38 (Hayes 1985, 87-88, Tav.21.1-2). Pieces of a similar krater found in Benghazi (Berenice) were named as B384.1 and B384.2 under the general form number B384. Hayes (1967) Form 1A = (EAA) Form P37 was primarily chosen for comparison. It was also compared with the similar sample defined as Hayes (1967) Form 1B = (EAA) Form X38 and the only differentiating element was stated as the rim profile (Kenrick 1985: 270, fig.49/384.1-384.2). Our krater highly resembles both the pieces found in Berenice and also the samples Hayes introduced in EAA. It is quite significant that the rim profile is similar to the rim profile of sample number B384.1 found in Berenice, and the body and the bottom are similar to the Hayes Form X38 introduced in EAA. As with the sample from Berenice, the rim profile of our sample is also different from Hayes (1967) Form 1B = (EAA) Form X38. Moreover its form and the colour of the slip show that this krater is definitely an original Cypriot product and was imported to Anatolia. It is known that Cypriot Sigillatas were produced for two hundred years between the second half of the 1st century B.C. and the second half of the 2nd century A.D., and that it was commonly exported outside the island, especially during the 1st century B.C. Samples from Berenice were dated between the second half of the 1st century B.C. and the first half of the 1st century A.D., even though the exact limits are not known. We suggest the first half of the 1st century B.C., or the 1st century A.D. for this artefact. Conclusion As a result of the studies performed during 2008, groups of Roman Period Red Slip Ware in the collection of the Akşehir museum and the form repertoire of the wares in these groups were introduced. Although the wares determined and classified here were few in number, it was seen that they were rich in variety. These vases are original or imitation samples of Eastern Sigillata A, Italian Sigillata, Sagalassos Red Slip Ware and Cypriot Sigillata, groups produced in different regions and workshops that were quite popular in the Roman Period. The group of findings highest in number is the ESA with 18 samples. Others are 1 Italian Sigillata, 1 Cypriot Sigillata and 2 Imitation Sagalassos Red Slip Wares (Graph 2). Through analysis, it was concluded that most of the Red Slip vases are from the 1st century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., and one sample is from the 7th century A.D. It was identified that ESA Form 2, Form 3, Form 4 and Cypriot Sigillata Form 1 among the examples of Akşehir Red Slip Wares are original imported products, while the rest are different in their slip characteristics, although the same as, or similar to, the originals in form. The group best representing this situation is the ESA as it contains many samples. It is known that the slip of the ESAs was generally applied by double dipping technique, while nearly half of the items in the Akşehir museum had watery, weak and thin slips. It should also be mentioned that there is no correction on the slip of these pots applied in single dipping

technique. The leaks on the slip, a general characteristic of the painted ceramics from the Hellenistic period, but rare in ESAs, support our idea. Another significant point about the ESAs is that in some forms, such as Form 1, 6 and 7, the lower bodies have no slip and are left in their original clay colour. This is also valid for the samples of Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. As is clear from these vessels, most of the Roman Red Slip Ware items determined in the museum collection are second-class imitation products and this is the main point we would like to emphasize. Are these second-class products produced in original workshops or imitation products from local workshops? We claim that these were most probably imitation products, as we have observed that many vases in similar slip and form characteristics are present in nearby museums. This made us think that this type of ware was the imitation production of a local workshop, or workshops probably close to this region, but as yet undiscovered. That the origins of our artefacts and the examples from other museums are uncertain, and that they do not belong to any excavation context, prevent us from making a clear statement on the situation. It is known that importing high-quality goods has always been expensive. Generally many societies chose to imitate the products they import, thus supporting the economy and possessing the wares they desire. All suggests that the workshops producing these pots probably imitated the popular ware groups of the period and adopted them to their own conditions. Therefore we can say that these local production wares were another reflection of the Roman Red Slip Ware popular during the period, and accepted as the continuation of Hellenistic painted ceramics tradition in Roman Period, although sometimes competing with or replacing them. In this context; we think it is possible that new groups of Roman Red Slip Ware might be added to the literature as a result of wide-ranging studies to be performed in central Anatolia or its environs in the future. Abbreviations Hama: Christensen, A.P. and Johansen, C.F. (eds.) 1971. Hama: Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938, III.2: Les Poteries Hellénistiques et les Terres Sigillées Orientales. Kenyon: Crowfoot, J.W., Crowfoot, G.M. and Kenyon, K.M., 1957, The Objects from Samaria, SamariaSebaste III, London. Bibliography Cornell, L.A. Jr. 1980. Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Red Slipped Pottery From Tell Anafa, 1968- 1973, PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. Hayes, J.W. 1967. ‘Cypriot Sigillata’, Report of the Department of Antiquites (RDAC), Cyprus, 65-67. Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London.

118

Mehmet Tekocak and Volkan Yıldız: A Group of Red Slip Ware from the Akşehir Museum Hayes, J.W. 1985. ‘Sigillate Orientali’, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Classica e Orientale. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Imperio), 196, Rome. Jones, F.F. 1950. The Pottery, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, Vol.I, (ed. H. Goldman), 149-296, Plate 119210, Princeton. Kenrick, Ph. M. 1985, ‘The Fine Pottery, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Vol. III, Part 1’, Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5, Tripoli. Lapp, P.W. 1961, Palestinian Ceramic Chronology 200 BC – AD 70, New Haven. Poblome, J. 1999. Sagalassos Red Slip Ware – Typology and Cronology, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology II, (ed. M. Waelkens), Brepols. Robinson, H.S. 1959, The Athenian Agora V, Pottery of the Roman Period, Princeton. Saracino, L.M. 1985. ‘Terra Sigillata Nord-Italica’, Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Classica e Orientale.

Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Imperio), 185-230, Rome. Slane, K.W. 1989. Corinthian Ceramic İmports: the Changing Pattern of Provincial Trade in the First and Second Centuries A.D., The Greeks Renaissance in the Roman Empire, (eds. S.Walker and A.Cameron), 219225. Waelkens, M. and Poblome, J. 1997, ‘Sagalassos IV. Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1994 and 1995’, in Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensa Monographiae 9, Leuven. Yıldız, V. 2006. Tarsus Cumhuriyet Alanı Kazılarında Bulunan Doğu Sigillatası A Grubu Seramikleri (Unpublished Masters thesis) Konya. Zoroğlu, L. 1986. ‘Samsat’da Bulunan Doğu Sigillitaları, İlk Rapor’, S.Ü.Fen- Edebiyat Fakültesi, Edebiyat Dergisi, Sayı:3, Konya, 61-100.

Figure 1: Rates of ESA in the Akşehir Museum

Figure 2: Rates of Roman Red Slip Ware in the Akşehir Museum

119

SOMA 2009

120

Mehmet Tekocak and Volkan Yıldız: A Group of Red Slip Ware from the Akşehir Museum

121

SOMA 2009

122

Toilet Culture and ‘Latrinas’ in Asia Minor Murat Taşkıran, Ömer Uzunel and Aysun Topaloğlu Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Human cleaning practices are usually examined in three main classifications: personal; environmental; and medical cleanliness (Sevimli 2005: 1 etc.). The areas we will concern ourselves with mostly here are the personal and social categories, and it is associated with environmental cleaning in most cases.

latrina in the southwest corner of an agora dating to the 2nd century B.C. (Whitley 2003-2004: 3). Our information concerning general-purpose latrinas used in ancient Greece is limited, but even if not as sophisticated as Roman examples, it is presumed that the Greeks pioneered their early development.

Toilets, pits and channels were first encountered in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, and then in Cretan and Mycenaean civilizations. Building a toilet under the palace, Sargon I, who ruled between the Tigris and Euphrates in mid-3rd century B.C, pioneered toilets as architectural features. The horse-shoe shaped sitting part of the toilet rests over a pit into which human waste is deposited. This form is also the earliest known example of the closet type. In the mid-2nd century B.C a toilet system with siphon was built at Knossos Palace in Crete. In this example, decreasing its flow through a system of clay pipes, the rain water that gathered on the roofs was fed into the baths and toilets of the palace (Gülbay 2003: 1-3).

In Rome, as well as roads, the maintenance of waste channels was also considered an important duty, and in the time of Augustus, under the name of curatores cloacarum and redemptor cloacarum, civil servants were responsible for this duty under the control of senior officials (Sevimli 2005: 77).

Various archaeological data belonging to Hittite toilet culture has been encountered. In the texts that have been found various words relating to toilets have been deciphered (Ertem 1974: 12; Sevimli 2005: 4). For example words such as DUGkalti – chamber pot (lavatory), husselli – clay pit, dur – urine are found on tablets with cuneiform scripts, and such passages as ‘cooks will not offer the gods foods with urine (du-u-ur) and excrement (zakkar)’, and ‘however the rain waters clean the streets from contamination...’, as well as ‘do not let them throw excrement into the city Hattuşa haphazardly’, attest to the fact that toilet culture improved under the Hittites (Ünal 2005: 62). Towards the end of the late Hittite Period, the remains of Utartu castle toilets (Erzen 1978: 9) built close to water channels in the 8th century B.C., have also been found. The large drainage system at Büyükkale (Boğazköy) survived well preserved into modern times. Clay pipes were inserted into narrow ditches and arranged to flow north and south. In Alacahöyük (Fig. 1) and Maşathöyük, drainage network systems are found. In the 7th century B.C. in Çavuştepe (Fig. 2) (Erzen 1978: 5-9), the existence of a fixed toilet with a round twin-layered tub and a modern fountain has been identified. A filled-in pit at Gordion is also thought to have been used as a latrina (latrine) (Young 1966: 275). Drainage systems and latrinas have been found in Eubia, Dystos and Nemea (Corinth region). In Hellenistic times in Pella, the streets had covered channels and the waste from connected houses flowed into them (Gülbay 2003: 2). Little has been found to date of any public toilets in Athens, but there is a single example of a Roman-era

In the ancient texts, especially Greek sources, we have further information. The earliest record we have is in Hesiod, who warns us not to use the roads, to crouch down and use the courtyard wall; it is also antisocial to relieve oneself in the river (Hesiodos, 730). In Herodotus, a major source for our understanding of the ancient period, especially the 5th century B.C., we have it that an Egyptian woman will urinate standing, whereas men sit (Herodotus II, 111). In The Wasps, Aristophanes writes that urine containers hang with other containers on the walls, and that Dionysus’ had a servant clean his backside with a sponge (Arılar, 14). As well as written sources, archaeological data presents information on toilet culture. In symposium scenes described on red-figure vases of the 5th century B.C., it can be seen that human waste in vases was thrown from houses into open channels by the roadside. In these scenes servants carry the containers called lasana, lekane and amis (a container for male use with handle and hole). Night vessels for women called skapphion (Gülbay 2003: 5). Clay vessels similar to today’s chamber pots were apparently used for children (Jenkins 1993: 12). The word latrina stems from the Latin lavatrina (washing). As the word latrina generally means toilet, it is used in the meaning of washing and bathing in the sources (Metzler 1996: 1179). Emerging in a small number in Greece in Hellenistic times, latrinas spread all over the Mediterranean, becoming a feature of urban architecture, thanks to the Romans (Yegül 2006: 273).1 The design of these constructions developed in Anatolia and became somewhat luxurious, such as the example at Tralleis example, and up to 65 users could be accommodated simultaneously (Yaylalı 2006: 5-7).   The same author also mentions examples of latrinas in the Islamic period (Yegül 2006: 320). 1

123

SOMA 2009 The number of latrines increased from the 1st century A.D., and in 315 A.D. there were 140 in Rome. Public latrinas underwent several changes from the 3rd century A.D. to the Byzantium period, before their use declined in the 6th century A.D. (Gülbay 2005: 7). Citizens necessarily continued their habits of using containers at night in Rome, with guests being offered commodes that servants would empty. The most common method used before the prevalence of latrinas and home privies in Rome was for containers called gastra to be used and the waste deposited the streets. Vespasian imposed a tax on these pots to raise revenues (Gülbay 2005: 22). Understandably, latrinas were frequently unhygienic places. Brushes (Fig. 3) are known to have been used for self-cleaning, dipping them into a clean water channel before the chamber pots. These brushes are thought to have been cleaned in a central stream, giving problems of odour and hygiene and smell. It would have been rational for these brushes to have been used once and then changed. It is also known that in some latrinas small sponges were inserted into split canes to be used as cleaners (Fig. 4) (Gülbay 2003: 42). Servants would clean the brushes, however, if one considers one servant per person in a place like the Tralleis latrina (Fig. 5), with 65-70 users, such a number of servants would be unfeasible. It is more likely that in larger centres there were functionaries responsible for cleaning and maintenance in Rome and elsewhere – as today. Latrinas in Anatolia were usually sited next to the baths in the city centre, or by the main roads. Most examples allow both men and women to use them, sitting on stone or wooden receptacles, and with scant regard for privacy. As a result the locations were known as latrinaum antistes, or places for sexual activity, as in baths; in Pompeii a wall painting portrays such a scene. Men and women were seemingly separated in latrinas (Fig. 6) found in 4thcentury B.C. Sardes in Anatolia (Gülbay 2003: 22). There are two categories of latrinas: public and private. Researchers separate Latrinas into various groups according to seating arrangements,2 either straight or planned-type with a single row; the square or rectangular planned type; planned with peristyle; and round planned and exedra type. The straight or planned type with a single row has been found in Miletos in Anatolia. The seats arranged along the sides hindered users and reduced socialization, one of the main functions of Rome toilet culture. These types may have been used where city/town space L-shaped latrinas of this type are known, as, for example, at Sardes. The square or rectangular planned type, in which seats were arranged along three sides, is the most type (along with the peristyle form) in Anatolia and the Mediterranean world. Good examples include the Tralleis latrina, the Sardes   R. Neudecker classified latrinas in Die Pracht der Latrine (1994), and his classifications are used in this study. 2

men’s latrina, the Magnesia latrina (Fig. 7), the Metropolis latrina, and the Hierapolis latrina (Fig. 8). According to the single row type, it has a sitting arrangement suitable for socialization with ones neighbour. The biggest example of this type is the Hierapolis latrina. Of eleven examples that were found in Anatolia, five have a ‘U’-shaped sitting plan and indicates the probable prevalence of this type (Neudecker 1994: 41). The peristyle type was the most elaborate style of Roman latrina types with its inner decoration and structural material. Roman toilet culture reached its apogee with this style in terms of scale, high-quality workmanship, and levels of socialization. The most important examples of this type in Anatolia are at Tralleis (Fig. 5), Ephesus (Fig. 9), and Pergamon. The key characteristic of the type is the open roof, a design taken from atrium houses and known since Hellenistic times. It was preferred form in the Mediterranean and western Anatolia. Large sums were spent on them and their appearance in such metropolitan cities as Ephesus and Pergamon illustrate their importance. It was the type that was preferred by social elites and constructed in key places in the city centre. Another benefit of the peristyle types was that it increased air circulation in the latrinas, especially useful in summer. A pool was built in the centre where in rainwater was collected for use in the toilets. There are no written sources but it is probable that some perfume was sprayed in these pools (Neudecker 1994: 40-44). The exedra and round-plan was an ideal design for smaller groups. People could see and communicate with each other thanks to the semi-circular seating plan. This type can be seen near the theatre in Side in Anatolia (Neudecker 1994: 45). One of the best examples can be seen at Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli (Jansen 2007). There were also, of course, private latrinas in Roman times. Private toilets were different in that they were intended for less people. They tended to be small, dark rooms, without a great deal of decoration (Jansen 2005: 109). These could be found in houses and were sometimes provided with small windows. This type of latrina was generally for one person, with wooden benches. Although the walls were usually plain, some examples with marine decoration and flower motifs also been found. Good examples of wall ornamentation can be seen in the toilets in the ‘Side Houses’ at Ephesus. Private toilets could be constructed in, or connected to, the kitchen, and the pit was also used for general kitchen waste (Gülbay 2005: 23-25). Generally for Roman architecture, functionality takes first place. In Rome, such bath complexes as Traianum, Caracalla, the edges of which face the city, were ornamented with niches, aediculas and arches. These places also served as shops and exedras. Latrinas also had these features. Especially in the functional sense, latrinas were constructed in or next to such places as theatres, baths and agoras (Neudecker 1994: 75ff), where there would be crowds of people (Neudecker 1994: 73ff). In excavations in western Anatolia, different types of latrinas have been 124

Murat Taşkıran, Ömer Uzunel and Aysun Topaloğlu: Toilet Culture and ‘Latrinas’ in Asia Minor found. Although these are from bigger cities, they also had to be available in smaller settlements. The city of Ephesus revealed many toilets (Fig. 9-10). At least 18 toilets have been excavated and identified so far: ten group toilets were found, in areas all over the city; eight smaller, private toilets are concentrated mainly in the Hanghauser (Jansen 2005: 109). Due to the intensity of the work many of these toilets have been published. Of interest are the many graffiti, inscriptions and paintings on the walls of Ephesian toilets. There is, for example, a building inscription mentioning a public toilet near a brothel. On another public toilet in the Vedius Gymnasium, the columns carry the names of several professions, probably indicating seat reservations for guild members. (Scheibelreiter 2005: 71). One of the private toilets contains paintings of philosophers and advises users of the importance of regular bowel movements. These poems, paintings and graffiti indicate a lively toilet culture, including toilet humour (Jansen 2005: 109). In the finds so far, it has been calculated that the seating platforms of the Ephesian latrinas vary between 57 and 60cm. From this can be calculated how many people could use them. It is known that many of the toilets in Ephesus were constructed between the 4th and 7th centuries. The latrina in the Ephesus Scholastica Bath is for 45 people and was used between the 2nd and 4th centuries. There are two latrinas for 60 people in the Vedius Gymanasium. There are smaller latrinas in the Low Agora, Domitians Terrace, Harbour Bath, Byzantium Bath and State Agora. There are also some toilets for up to 12 people in the Hanghaus (Thür 2005, 4, 44, 84.), at the bath near the Mary Church, the Bouleuterion, and the Episcopium. Although Priene, which was designed in Hellenistic Age, is a small settlement, four latrina examples have been discovered so far (Kienlin 2004; Koenigs 1983). The Tralleis latrina (Fig. 11) is located at the north-eastern corner of the gymnasium and measures is 20 x 16m. It is ‘U’-type and could accommodate up to 65 people. It had three entrances, two in the east and the other in the northern part of the western wall. Between the two entrances in the east, there is a smaller pool compared to the main central one. This pool is thought to be have been used for storing clean water. The waste water coming from the bathing section of the Bath-Gymnasion is connected to the sewer system of the latirna under the western and southern walls of the latrina. When the inclines of the channels were examined it was discovered that the waste ran from west to east from the Bath-Gymnasium (pers. comm., Aysun Topaloğlu).3 The latrina at Metropolis was situated at the eastern corner of the southern axis of the BathGymnasion complex, ending with the Acropolis road. There are two channels – one for waste and the other for  The Tralleis latrina has not yet been published. I am grateful for details supplied by its excavator, Aysun Topaloğlu, in the course of a thesis). 3

clean water. The waste channel is connected to the main sewer system from the south. The dimensions of the latrina are 11.50 x 5.75m and it could be entered from the Acropolis route to the south and from the street to the east. The walls of the latrina were constructed with stone blocks and it does not have a regular construction. The roof was wooden and was probably left open in the centre for ventilation purposes. In the middle there was a marble basin (0.60m in diameter and 0.41m deep) in which the sponge sticks were placed (Gülbay 2003). The Hierapolis latrina, which could accommodate up to 100 people, is the largest found to date in western Anatolia. It measures 26 x 6m (Fig. 8) and was probably constructed in a Doric style; it is of ‘U’-type plan and there are 11 columns along its middle axle. The waste channel is 0.13m deep and indicates that the drainage system was effective here. The Latrina was constructed to the east of the main street, where there was a heavy level of traffic (D’Andria 2006: 80-85). There are two latrinas at the Asklepion in Pergamon; the sexes were separated. Both latrinas resemble the Sardes examples, particularly the plan of the waste channels. The male toilets were constructed in peristyle and measured 8.42 x 7.77m. The clean water channel is 0.27m wide and 0.11m deep; with its blocks of 0.52m width it is the biggest clean water channel. In the centre there are still remnants of the pool that collected (Radt 2001: 234). The female toilets, ‘U’-type in plan, was constructed at the north-western corner of the male latrines; it measures 7.59 x 4.43m and the absence of the peristyle indicates that the roof was completely closed (Radt 2001). Two late-period latrinas were constructed as an early Byzantium addition at the southern-west corner of Sardes’ Bath Complex in the 4th century A.D. They were probably designed as separate facilities for the sexes (Yegül 1986: 21ff). The Magnesia latrina (Fig. 7) is thought to have been a later construction behind the northern stoa of the Artemision. Capable of accommodating 32 people, it is divided into two sections and was entered from a north door into a room with pool; a turn through the west door led to the toilet area that had two fountains, water channels, and carved seats. A drain took the waste from the building (Kadıoğlu 1997). Conclusion Although the latrines (latrinas) mentioned in our study are mostly from larger centres, they had to be available also for smaller communities. The number of public latrinas increased fast from the 1st century A.D. In 315 A.D., 140 latrinas were available in Rome. Public latrinas underwent several changes from the 3rd century A.D to the Byzantine Period and their use declined during the 6th century A.D. All the latrinas known in the Mediterranean are dated between the 2nd century and 6th centuries A.D. (Gülbay 2005: 7). As can be seen from Ephesus (Jansen 2005: 110), most latrinas from the Roman Period were rebuilt in

125

SOMA 2009 Late Antique times or their materials reused. This shows that the importance given to toilet culture and hygiene continued in the early periods.

Bibliography Aristophanes, 2000. Eşek Arıları (Yargıçlar), çev. Sabahattin Eyuboğlu, İstanbul. D’Andria, F. 2004. Hierapolis, İstanbul. Ertem, H. 1974. Boğazköy Metinlerine Göre Hititler Devri Anadolu’sunun Florası, Ankara. Erzen, A. 1978. İ.S. 7-6. yy. Urartu Miamrlık Anıtları ve Ortaçağ Nekropolü, Ankara. Gülbay, O. 2003. Batı Anadolu ve Metropolis HamamGymnasium Örneğinde Latrinalar, (unpublished graduate thesis, İzmir). Gülbay, O. 2005. Antik Devirde Latrinalar, İstanbul. Herodotus, 2006. Heredot Tarihi, çev. Müntekim Ökmen, İstanbul. Hesiod, 1977, Hesiodos Eseri ve Kaynakları, çev. Azra Erhat, Sebahattin Eyüboğlu, Ankara. Jansen, G., 2006, “The Toilets of Ephesus. A Preliminary Report”, in G. Wiplinger (ed.) Cura Aquarum in Ephesos, BABesch suppl. 12/Sonderschrift ÖJh 42, pp. 109-112. Jansen, G. 2007. ‘Toilets with a View The Luxurious Toilets of the Emperor Hadrian at his Villa near Tivoli’. BABesch 82, 171-187. Jenkins, I. 1993. Antik Devirde Çocuk Eğitimi, İstanbul. Kadıoğlu, M. 1997. Menderes Magnesiası Latrina Opus Sectileleri, (unpublished graduate thesis, Ankara). Kienlin, A. 2004. Die Agora von Priene, (unpublished doctoral thesis, München).

Koenigs, W. 1983. ‘Der Athenatempel von Priene’, İstMitt 33, 134-234. Metzler, J.B. 1996. Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopedie, Iul-Lee 6, Stuttgart. Macqueen, J.G. 1999. Hititler, İstanbul. Neudecker, R. 1994. Die Pracht Der Latrine, München. Radt, W., 2001, Pergamon Antik Bir Kentin Tarihi Yapıları, (München) Rumscheid, F. and Koenigs, W. 2000. ‘Priene: Küçük Asya’nın Pompeisi’ Rehberi, İstanbul. Scheibelreiter, V. 2005. ‘Ein schwarzfiguriges Mosaik aus dem Vediusgymnasium von Ephesos’, Römısche Hıstorısche Mıtteılungen, 47. Band, 55–79. Smith, R. 1998, ‘Archaeological Reserach at Aphrodisias in Caria’, AJA, Vol. 102, No.2, 225-250. Sevimli, Ş. 2005. Anadolu Uygarlıklarında Temizlik Kavramı ve Uygulamaların Evrimi, (unpublished doctoral thesis, Adana). Thür, H. 2005. ‘Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos die Wohneinheit’, Forchungen in Ephesos Band VIII/6, Wien. Ünal, A. 2005. ‘Kent Yaşamı ve Sağlık, Kentlerde Temizlik ve Sağlıkla İlgili Kuruluş ve Yapılar ve İçme Suyu İle İlgili Tesisler’, Hititler Devrinde Anadolu, Kitap 3, İstanbul. Yaylalı, A. 2007. ‘2006 Yılı Tralleis Antik Kenti Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları’, 29, KST, I. Cilt,561-566. Yegül, F. 2006. Antik Çağda Hamamlar ve Yıkanma, İstanbul. Young, S.Y. 1966. ‘The Gordion Campaign of 1965’, AJA, Vol.70, No.3, 267-278. Whitley, J. 2004. ‘Archaeology in Greece 2003-2004’, Archaeological Reports, No. 50, 1-9

Fig. 1. Alacahöyük: canal system

Fig. 2. Çavuçtepe: plan of courtyard sewer and toilet stone 126

Murat Taşkıran, Ömer Uzunel and Aysun Topaloğlu: Toilet Culture and ‘Latrinas’ in Asia Minor

Fig. 4. Metropolis: small pool for sponge stick Fig. 3. Toilet sponge stick

Fig. 5. The latrina at Tralleis (plan)

Fig. 6. The latrina at Sardes (plan) 127

SOMA 2009

Fig. 7. The latrina at Magnesia

Fig. 8. The latrina at Hierapolis

Fig. 9. Ephesus: the latrina of the Vedius Gymnasium 128

Murat Taşkıran, Ömer Uzunel and Aysun Topaloğlu: Toilet Culture and ‘Latrinas’ in Asia Minor

Fig. 10. Ephesus: Late Antique toilet from a stairwell in a house west of the Bouleuterion

Fig. 11. The Tralleis latrina: attempted reconstruction

129

130

Muezzin Mahfils in Ottoman-Period Mosques in Konya Mustafa Cetinaslan Department of Art History, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey In this study, the muezzin mahfils designed as detached units in the mosques of the Ottoman Period in Konya, such as the Sultan Selim Mosque (1567), Serafeddin Mosque (1636) and Aziziye Mosque (1876), are introduced, as well as some of their features highlighted. The term mahfil is used to define the especially designated units that are constructed at a height from ground level, with balustrade or cage, in the worship areas of mosques, and built for different functions (Arseven 1966: 1260). The term muezzin mahfil is normally reserved for the raised feature designed for muezzins to observe the salath and gathering the muezzins who recite azan and conduct the order of worship. The muezzin mahfil is designed to be imposing because of their symbolic meaning, importance and function within the harim (‘sanctum sanctorum’). The first example of the muezzin mahfil emerges in the Mescid-i Nebevi, in Medina. The construction date of this first muezzin mahfil is not known; there was no private place for muezzin during Mohammed’s lifetime. Out of respect for Bilal-i Habesi, who is recognized as the first muezzin, the plain wooden muezzin mahfil, built where he prayed, is known as ‘makberiyye’ and recognized as the first muezzin mahfil (Küçükaşçı and Bozkurt 2004: 286). Afterwards the muezzin mahfil reconstructed by Kayıtbay was of marble, square in plan and based on four slim and elegant pillars; restored, it survives today. After Mescid-i Nebevi, the prototypes of the muezzin mahfils are forms known as ‘manabir’ and built for reciting azan in mosque by Muaviye’s Governor in Egypt, Mesleme (Pedersen 1971: 35). The first mosques were built to enable as many as possible to perform salath in lines running parallel to the wall of the mihrab, as according to general belief it is better to perform salath in the front rows so that the voice of the imam can be heard clearly. But as buttressed mosques widened the mihrab, and the resultant development of monumentalstyle mosques, larger inner areas became more distanced from the mihrab. Thus the problem of being unable to hear the imam occurred for those in the back rows; thus the construction of the muezzin mahfils in the nave or around the nave of mosques solved this. The muezzin mahfils in the Selimiye Mosque Konya’s Selimiye Mosque was built in 1567 by Sultan II. Selim; there is some debate about the architect of the construction.1 The mosque, designed as a social complex   There documented construction date for mosque, but it is thought that the social complex was begun during the period of Selim II.’s time 1

with hostel and bath, takes its place in the ‘widened’ style of classical Ottoman-period mosques, with its central dome and semi-dome on one side; the mosque is built completely of ashlar. It includes seven main areas and a community space and harim. There is a minaret with one balcony at the east and west corners of the community area (Fig. 1).2 The muezzin mahfil (3.85 x 3.85m2) was built adjacent to the northeast of the south-western pillar, one of the four main pillars carrying the dome (Figs. 2, 7). The staircase to the muezzin mahfil, 2.60m off the ground, comprises seven stone steps and is adjacent to the main pillar carrying the dome from north. The stone steps reach up as far as 1.70m and then wooden steps continue (Fig. 8). The muezzin mahfil is supported by ten marble pillars: two carrying the dome and eight free, square-type pillars. There are plain, wooden screens, 0.50m high, between the pillars, and in the upper sections there are decorative arches of marble consoles. There are marble transoms placed on the pillars and the upper parts of the transoms protrude. The upper part of the muezzin mahfil has no bay and the cage has wooden screens, 0.50m high, with the same features as in the bottom part. A screen, cut at the staircase, covers the four frontages. The wooden ceiling under the wooden covering of the muezzin mahfil is in alignment with the transom and separated into square units; it is painted brown colour and there is no ornamentation on the ceiling today. The muezzin mahfils in the Serafeddin Mosque While the construction date, architect, and builder of the Konya Serafeddin Mosque are unknown, a date of A.D.1636/H.1048 is generally accepted for this structure.3 The Serafeddin Mosque, like the Sultan Selim Mosque, falls within the grouping that includes a central dome supported by semi-dome on one side (Fig. 3). The mosque

in Konya and completed in the first years of his reign. Some scholars consider Mimar Koca Sinan to be the architect; others doubt this because of some defects in the construction. A current view is that the design was by Mimar Sinan but that it was built by another architect, or one of the students of Mimar Sinan (Baş 2003: 254). 2   For the architecture, see Riefstahl 1930: 311-318; Uzluk 1971: 173181; Önder 1976: 237-239; Konyalı 1997: 528-535; Baş 2003: 251-276; Karpuz 2009: 66-67. 3   The date of endowment of the mosque is 11-20 Şaban 1046/8-17 February 1637, but there is no exact information on the date of final of construction. Some documents indicate that the mosque was completed before the date of endowment. According to a dated document of 1677, the construction of the mosque was completed at the beginning of the century (Baş and Ürekli 1999: 203-204).

131

SOMA 2009 consists of a harim, seven spaces and a main community area; there is a minaret with one balcony at the east.4 The muezzin mahfil (4.10 x 4.10m2) is 3.45m off the ground and adjacent from the northeast to the south- western pillar that is one of the four main pillars carrying the main dome covering the harim. It is reached by a staircase near the main pillar (Fig. 9). The muezzin mahfil is widened from the north by a 0.70 x3.10m2 feature (Fig. 4). The mahfil is built on the main pillar at the northwest corner. Octagonal pillars support the second floor mahfil, covering three sides of the harim except for the wall of the mihrab at the northeast, and there is a square-type marble pillar at the southwest corner. A square-type feature between the octagonal pillar at the south and a marble pillar supports the muezzin mahfil.5 The timber stringer of the muezzin mahfil is completed by a wooden base between the pillars, and the ends of the wooden base forming the floor of the muezzin mahfil protrude as a console. This wooden base is covered by floorboards; the beam soffit is ornamented with handcarved decorations on the batten ceiling. All the frontages of the muezzin mahfil are surrounded by a plain wooden screen, 0.50m high. The batten ceiling is covered by rich hand-carved decorations between the geometric compositions formed by the wooden mouldings (Fig. 10). On the edge bordered by the transoms, there is a wide border consisting of flowers and curling boughs. Eight-stemmed flowers appear on the surfaces between the transoms. Between the sections making up the wooden mouldings in the form of a square and multi-armed star on the ceiling, there is a composition consisting of largescale, eight-armed stars with wheels in the centre, and these compositions end with a narrow band of flowers and curling boughs. Brown, yellow and red colours are frequently used. The muezzin mahfil in the Aziziye Mosque The Aziziye Mosque was constructed in 1876 by Sultan Abdülaziz. Its importance lies not only in its being a construction that, outside of Istanbul, combines Baroque, Rococo and Eclectic styles, but also it was last major Ottoman construction in Konya. The mosque features two minarets with one balcony adjacent to the last community area; there are five smaller areas and a harim, covered with a dome placed on octagonal trimmer. There are two large windows at each frontage and entrances on the east, west and north sides (Fig. 5).6

  For the architecture, see Anonim 1959: 13-14; Akçay 1965: 34-40; Önder 1976: 242-245; Konyalı 1997: 543-551; Baş and Ürekli 1999: 199-253; Baş 2003: 251-276; Karpuz 2009: 278-283. 5   For possible later support work to this feature, see Karpuz 2009: 280. 6   For the architectural features, see Önder 1976: 251-252; Eyice 1981: 163-190; Eyice 1991: 347; Konyalı 1997: 325-327; Baş 2003: 251-276; Karpuz 2009: 122-125. 4

The muezzin mahfil (2.75 x 8.0m) was constructed adjacent to the north wall at the spacing part of the north entrance of the harim; it is 4.85m off from the ground. The muezzin mahfil is placed on the main north wall and rests on four marble pillars connected to each other in the direction of the kiblah and connected to the north wall with a circular arch (Figs. 6, 11). Access to the muezzin mahfil is via a staircase built on the north wall to the west of the north entrance. There are circular arched doors at both sides of the entrance door. The door at the east part opens to a small room and the one on the west side opens to the staircase. One of the circular arched doors on the west leads the stairs to the muezzin mahfil, the other in the east to the last community area. The pillars carrying the muezzin mahfil are connected to each other with circular arches in an east and west direction; the pillars to the east and west are connected to circular/cylindrical pillars with circular arches. The muezzin mahfil has a circular bay on the middle cincture in the direction of the mihrab (Fig. 12). On the bay there is a plaster half-rosette consisting of gilt-painted wide leaves around three red-coloured flowers. There is a similar feature at the centre of the harim ceiling. The 0.40m-high wooden screens of the muezzin mahfil surround both sides except to the north; they are composed of ‘S’- and ‘C’-type designs appropriate to the general features of the mosque. One of the other important features of the muezzin mahfil of the Aziziye Mosque is the panel on the north wall. This muezzin mahfil is reserved for muezzins – the circle rosette has on it ‘Bilal-i Habeşi’ (‫( )یشبح لالب‬Çam 1995: 544). Evaluation All of the muezzin mahfils in Ottoman mosques are raised. Although the middle of the harim is the most appropriate place acoustically, most of them are placed to the right of the axis of the mihrab and portal so as not to impede visibility (Tanman 2003: 333). Placing the muezzin mahfil to the right of the axis of the mihrab and portal, and building them adjacent to one of the pillars carrying the dome of the harim was a widespread practice in classical architecture of the Ottoman period (Çamay 1989: 10-80). Muezzin mahfils placed to the right of the axis of the mihrab and portal are designed primarily for two different positions: (1) adjacent to the right-front pillar (i.e. Amasya II. Beyazıd (1486), İstanbul Süleymaniye (155057), Istanbul Sultan Ahmet (1609-17), Istanbul Fatih (1767) mosques), as in Konya’s Selimiye mosque; and (2) adjacent to the right-back pillar (i.e. İstanbul Beyazıd (1500-06), İstanbul Kılıç Ali Paşa (1581), İstanbul Şehzade (1543-48) and İstanbul Yeni (1663) mosques) as in Konya’s Selimiye mosque. The muezzin mahfils in Ottoman-style mosques and those of widened plan of them are generally constructed adjacent to the northern body wall. The muezzin mahfils in Bursa Yeşil (1419-20), Istanbul Üsküdar Mihrimah Sultan (1548) and Istanbul Üsküdar Atik Valide (1577-

132

Mustafa Cetinaslan: Muezzin Mahfils in Ottoman-Period Mosques in Konya 83) mosques are of this type, as is the muezzin mahfil in Konya’s Aziziye Mosque. The fourth group consists of a few individual examples positioned on the axis of the mihrab and portal. The most famous of these is the muezzin mahfil in the Edirne Selimiye Mosque (1574), but this was deliberately constructed at a lower height so as not to spoil the visual esthetics of the mosque.7 The muezzin mahfil added to the interior of the Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Mosque in 976 H./1571 A.D. is another example of this policy (Erdemir 1999: 54). The muezzin mahfils, which have an important place in the Ottoman religious architectural tradition, are located in four different positions: adjacent to right-front pillar; to right-back pillar; the north body wall; and on the mihrab and portal. Three of the four different practices that are seen in the muezzin mahfils in Konya (the Selimiye, Serafeddin and Aziziye mosques) are examples that best reflect the materials, technique, decoration and styles of that period. Generally marble is preferred for muezzin mahfils in Ottoman mosques, except for a few examples like the Edirne Selimiye Mosque. The material favoured for the muezzin mahfils in Konya’s Selimiye and Aziziye mosques is marble, with wood, however, chosen for the Serafeddin Mosque. Decoration of muezzin mahfils is found on pillars, column capitals, muqarnas bands parallel with the covers, on screens and ceilings. Although the samples of Konya are relatively plain, the areas that are decorated follow the general tradition. While plain pillars are used for three of the muezzin mahfils, the column capitals of the Aziziye Mosque are in keeping with the Rococo decoration. The muqarnas bands parallel to the covers, especially in the Selatin mosques, are not replicated in the Konya buildings. The unit has a plain moulding in the Selimiye Mosque and in the Serafeddin Mosque this unit is separated into sections by bay consoles and there are hand-carved compositions on the surfaces. While the screens are generally made of wood or marble, wood is preferred in muezzin mahfils of the Konya mosques. However the screens relate to the decorative style of that period. While plain screens are preferred in the Selimiye and Serafeddin mosques, a curved screen reflecting the late period was constructed in the Aziziye mosque. sectionalized mouldings on the ceilings of the muezzin mahfils, and in some instances hand-carved decorations within these sectionalized units, are common. While the ceiling of the Konya Selimiye Mosque is sectionalized, the ceiling surface between the compositions that formed by the mouldings has hand-carved decorations. Although the ceiling of the muezzin mahfil of the Aziziye Mosque is plain, a ceiling band and half-rosette are to be found under the bay.

Bibliography Akçay, İ. 1965. Şerafettin Camii, Türk Yurdu, 4–5/311, 3440, Ankara. Akın, G. 1995. ‘The “Müezzin Mahfil” and Pool of the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne’, Mukarnas an Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture, XII, 63-83. Anonymous, 1959. ‘Konya’da Sultan Selim Camii’nin Tamirine Ait Mühim Bir Kayıt’, Anıt, 24, 13-14, Konya. Arseven, C.E. 1966. ‘Mahfil’, Sanat Ansiklopedisi, 3, 1260, Istanbul. Baş, A. 2003. ‘Konya’daki Osmanlı Camileri’, Osmanlı Döneminde Konya, 251-276, Konya. Baş, A. and Ürekli, B. 1999. ‘Konya Şerafettin Camii’, SÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Edebiyat Dergisi, 13, 199-253, Konya. Çam, N. 1995. ‘Müezzin Mahfilleri ve Gaziantep Camilerinin Ahşap Müezzin Mahfilleri’, IX. Milletlerarası Türk Sanatları Kongresi Bildirileri, 1, 541-555, Ankara. Çamay, N. 1989. ‘Mimar Sinan’ın İstanbul’daki Camilerinde Mahfiller’, (İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul. Erdemir, Y. 1999. Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Süleyman Bey Camii, Beyşehir. Eyice, S. 1981. ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda Türk Sanatı ve Türk Mimarisinde Avrupa Neo-Klasik Üslubu’, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı IX-X, 163-190, Istanbul. Eyice, S. 1991. ‘Aziziye Camii’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 4, 347, Istanbul. Karpuz, H. 2009. Türk Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri Konya, Cilt: 1-3, Ankara. Konyalı, İ.H. 1997. Abideleri ve Kitabeleriyle Konya Tarihi, Ankara. Küçükaşçı, M. S. and Bozkurt, N. 2004. Mescid-i Nebevi, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 29, 281290, Ankara. Önder, M. 1976. Mevlana Şehri Konya, Ankara. Pedersen, J. 1971. ‘Mescid’, İslam Ansiklopedisi, 8, 1-118, Istanbul. Riefstahl, R.M. 1930. ‘The Selimiyeh in Konya’, Art Bulletin, XII, No: 4, 311-318. Tanman, M.B. 2003. ‘Mahfil’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 27, 331-333, Ankara. Uzluk, Ş. 1971. ‘İstanbul’daki Eski Fatih Camii’nin Bir Benzeri Konya’da Selimiye Camii’, Vakıflar Dergisi, IX, 173-181, Ankara.

  For Edirne’s Selimiye Mosque, the muezzin mahfil and the pool under it, and the historical development of these elements, Akın 1995: 63-66. 7

133

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1: Plan of Selimiye Mosque (drawing: M. Bulut) Fig. 2: Muezzin mahfil in Selimiye Mosque (drawing: M. Çetinaslan)

Fig. 3: Plan of Serafeddin Mosque (drawing: I. Kunt)

Fig. 4: Muezzin mahfil in Serafeddin Mosque (drawing: M. Çetinaslan)

Fig. 6: Muezzin mahfil in Aziziye Mosque (drawing: M. Bulut)

Fig. 5: Plan of Aziziye Mosque (drawing: M. Sözen) 134

Mustafa Cetinaslan: Muezzin Mahfils in Ottoman-Period Mosques in Konya

Fig. 7: Selimiye Mosque, general view of muezzin mahfil

Fig. 8: Selimiye Mosque, north-west view of muezzin mahfil

Fig. 9: Şerafeddin Mosque, general view of muezzin mahfil

135

SOMA 2009

Fig. 10: Şerafeddin Mosque, ceiling of muezzin mahfil

Fig. 11: Aziziye Mosque, general view of muezzin mahfil

Fig. 12: Aziziye Mosque, balcony of muezzin mahfil 136

Timber Decoration in the Houses of the Akseki İlvat Villages Necla Akkaya Department of Art History, Faculty of Science and Literature, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey This paper examines some of the timber decoration to be found in the traditional Turkish houses of the three Akseki İlvat villages – Büyük İlvat, Belen İlvat and Bucak İlvat – the word İlvat meaning ‘passing place’. The Akseki district is connected to the city of Antalya, located in the south of the western Taurus Mountains. After Alanya, Akseki is the oldest district of Antalya, the others are Bozkır in the east, Seydişehir in the north, Gündoğmuş in the southeast and Manavgat in the southwest (Fig. 1). İn former times Akseki was known as Marla, Marola, or Marulya (Umar 1993: 550). Akseki lies within a greater area that includes Isauria (Ramsay 1960: 370) to the east, Pisidya (Özsait 1980: 61) to the west, Lykonia (Ramsay 1960: 365) to the north, and Pamfilya (Ercenk 1992: 362) to the south. Cities and fortifications were sited in strategic places in the area in the ancient Greek and Roman periods (Enhoş 1974: 16). Akseki and its environs were subject to Alanya in Byzantine times, controlled by Cyprus, and with borders extended to Manavgat (Özkaynak 1954: 26). Selcuks came to the area in 1085. At this time the Turks under Süleyman Shah’s command conquered much of Anatolia. The region was recaptured by Byzantium but lost again to Aladdin Keykubat I. in 1221 (Demir 2004: 541). After the Seljuks, Akseki was subsumed by Karamanoğlu Mehmet in 1373 (Bilim 2004: 198). In 1422, Gedik Ahmet Paşa placed the Akseki area into his Ottoman lands, with Alanya. With Alanya, Akseki, within the framework of governmental divisions related to taxation in the Kanuni period, was connected to the Karaman district – one of 13 districts. After Cyprus fell Akseki was again connected to that island in 1571 (Anonymous 1967: 54-55). It was totally separated from Alanya, appointing a township administrator of its own in 1872. Following a further change in organization, Antalya became an independent district included within Konya’s control in 1901 (Enhoş 1974: 21-22). İlvat village houses Three different plans are seen in the Akseki İlvat village houses. The houses in the first group have outside sofas and can be seen widely in the centre of Akseki and its environs. These houses are divided into two groups, those with or without eyvan. The houses with outside sofas without eyvan, as in the other groups, were built as duplexes. The ground floors were used as stabling and fodder storage, with the main living area on the upper floor. In these houses, two rooms

were located each side of the outside sofa, with a cellar behind these rooms. Some of the houses with outside sofa without eyvan have been transformed into kiosks, raising one of the edges with a terrace. Some of these kiosks were turned into rooms, dividing one edge of the sofa with a wooden facing wall. Sofas, besides serving as a winter room, provided passages to alcoves and toilets; sofas would also be used as living areas in summer. In the houses with outside sofa, stove-hoods, cooking range and two windows were located on one side. This side of the sofa was turned into a kitchen, being separated with a wall or a wooden folding screen. The houses with outside sofa with eyvan are built much more elaborately, and are larger compared to other houses. These houses were also built as duplexes, like the houses with outside sofa, but in this type the ground floor stable and fodder storage areas were modified. In these houses the sofa was only a summer area and the eyvan functioned as an extra sofa. Sometimes four to six rooms were placed around the eyvan. The inner sofa plan is not common in the area. Inner sofas were used in the summer and as a corridor to other rooms. The third plan type involves a central sofa plan. This design, also uncommon, features four rooms around the central sofa. Stone and timber were used for the construction of the old houses of the İlvat village. All the walls of the houses were built without mortar, compressed with peşduvans, wooden balks and rubble stones. Cedar wood, where available, was preferred because of its durability. Wood was used for peşduvans at intervals of 50cm. The edges of these outer balks set as denticulates, approximately 10-15cm from the wall. These balk edges are known as ‘detents’ and this masonry mortar system is often referred to as ‘houses with detents’ (Figs. 2, 3). Traditional houses in the Akseki İlvat villages were generally built as duplexes and with outside sofa without eyvan. The houses built with outside sofa are simple houses having two rooms and one or two cellars. The group with outside eyvan is a common type in the area. This type of house is much bigger and more elaborate. In this plan, the rooms (up to 5) were placed around the eyvan. Houses with inner and central sofas are rarer. Timber decorations Because of the forests in the area, timber decoration is widely found in houses. Exteriors may look humble, but inner decoration is often extensive – as with the dwellings examined here. Decoration styles developed from the

137

SOMA 2009 beginning of the 20th century as a synthesis of public and domestic architectural styles (Kunduracı 2002). Outer decoration (Figs. 3, 4) Marginalia is the most extensive exterior decoration. Window screen features were often decorated. Some were divided into four platforms and observation parts added to centre. Some were undivided and luminary windows included. On these luminary windows, altar forms and circular applications are often seen. Beadwork was often arranged horizontally and vertically, as a ‘T’ shape. In these examples the beading was applied according to breadth, altar forms applied; this motif was open-worked, usually small and circular in form. The same decoration application is also seen in interior screened rooms. Some screens were set as ‘guillotine’ windows. These were made with beadwork arranged crosswise at a 45-degree angle. This design incorporated a central diamond shape. Entrances are often dipterous and adorned with boardwork, often covered with geometric motifs: floral, diamond, and sun-disks were especially preferred. Hipped roofs generally had timber eaves and the external surfaces of the eaves were generally left plain. Kiosks (Figs. 5a, 5b) Kiosks separated with a terrace high off the ground and replaced as a summer-season, belvedere part of the sofa, especially draw attention by the addition of screened windows. Kiosks that replaced one part of the sofa in some houses were separated from the sofa and set out as a room. The windows are screened and the ceiling decoration elaborate, as either circular or flat plates. Geometric beadwork decorations are often seen on circular ceilings, and the separated frame technique was popular. On flat plates, the surface was covered with beads, cut at 90 and 45 degree angles; interlocking star forms generally formed the centres. The very centre often featured pomegranate motifs – three dimensional and embossed.

Window screens (Figs. 8a, 8b) Room windows are normally box-screened. These usually feature the same characteristic window screens as mentioned above. These shutters would differ from those on the external kiosks and were separated with timber boards that carried the decoration. Although some interior shutters were left plain, they would normally have botanical and geometric decoration – acanthus leaves, rosace motifs, four-leaf clover, and geometric side curves. Alcoves (Figs. 9a-c) Almost in every room of the houses in the area, there is one alcove and one bathing cubicle. Alcoves and bathing cubicles were generally separated by partitions and the inner sides of these were left undecorated. In richer households these wooden partitions comprising the interiors of alcoves and bathing cubicles were adorned with botanical decorative motifs. Again, the popular designs are acanthus leaves, the central rosace, four-leaf clover, and passionflower. On the alcove side, ‘S’ and ‘C’ forms are seen, as well as circular motifs. Alcove railings might also display ‘S’ form beadwork; shelves were carved with denticular motifs. Cupboards could be left plain but were often decorated with rosace and four-leaf clover motifs; the sides being adorned with geometric and circular patterns. Ceilings (Figs. 10a-d) One of the most important features of any room is the ceiling decoration. The houses of the area generally have flat, timbers ceilings. In the centre, a ‘navel’ panel with an eight- (and rarely six-) armed star was placed. The centre of the panel itself contained a further contracting star shape, with foliate and, rarely, stylized tulip motifs. At the very centre there is usually a pomegranate motif – a symbol of heaven, abundance, and fertility. Some ceilings might be elliptical in shape. These could also feature the eight-armed star ‘navel’. Inner sides of circular ceilings were generally adorned with beadwork and sun-disks.

Doorways (Fig. 6a, 6b)

Conclusion

Interior doorways were often highly decorated, featuring monoplane and separated panels. The interiors are geometric in design and adorned with floral motifs, inter alia, including rosettes, bobbins, acanthus, four-leaf clover, rosace, and ‘S-C’ convolutions. Around these motifs geometric curves are often seen. Frontals with two panels are available on doorways; general symmetry of decoration was not standard and boards were replaced by turns, providing symmetry in itself.

While interior decoration is found in many areas of the houses studied, the exteriors are much plainer. External decoration is often limited to bow windows and kiosks, while inside the doorways, ceilings, cupboards and alcoves are ornate.

Stove-hoods (Figs. 7a-d) One of the most decorative parts of the interior is the stove-hood. Hood frontals could feature decorative panels displaying ‘S’ motif, four-leaf clover, rosette and rosace motifs.

The motifs chosen reflected the eclectic tastes of the time. These included convoluted foliage, cardoon leaves, palmates, various flower motifs, stylized cypress, tulips and pomegranates. Geometrical motifs also feature: diamonds, triangles, squares, oblongs, hexagons, stars, ‘S’ and ‘C’ convolutions. and passionflower motifs are seen. Timber work techniques included carving, embossing, open-working, appliqué, and bead-works. Compared to

138

Necla Akkaya: Timber Decoration in the Houses of the Akseki İlvat Villages remoter houses, the Akseki dwellings were ornate and reflected wider architectural influences; their plans, frontal aspect, and decoration all reflect the urban style, as might be expected from their owners’ increasing status. Some of the houses built at the beginning of the 20th century were reconstructed within the scope of the ‘Akseki-İbradı Basin Improvement Project’. The reconstructed houses are in quite good repair, however houses not under this scheme have not fared as well and some of the wonderful wooden features are now being lost.

Bibliography Anonymous 1967, Antalya İl Yıllığı, 54-55. Arel, A. 1982. Osmanlı Konut Geleneğinde Tarihsel Sorunlar, İzmir. Bakır, İ. 1990). ‘Toroslarda Göçebe Mimarisi’, Türk Halk Mimarisi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Konya. Barışta, H.Ö. 1996. ‘Alanya Evlerinde Görülen Ağaç İşleri Üzerine’, IV. Alanya Tarih ve Kültür Seminerleri, 393398, Alanya. Bilim, C. 2004. ‘Arşiv Belgelerinde ve Salnamelerde Alanya’, Alanya Tarih ve Kültür Seminerleri: VII, 198, Alanya. Demir, M. 2004. ‘Selçuklu Tarih Kayıtlarında Alanya’nın Fethi’, Alanya Tarih ve Kültür Seminerleri, 10: 541.

Eldem, S.H. 1984. Türk Evi, Osmanlı Dönemi, I-II, İstanbul. Enhoş, M. 1974. Bütün Yönleriyle Akseki ve Aksekililer, 16, İstanbul. Ercenk, G. 1992. ‘Pamphylia Bölgesi ve Çevresi Eski Yol Sistemi’, Bulletin: LVI/216, 362, Ankara. Esengil, R. 2000. ‘Neden Akseki?’, Sanatsal ÇekülMozaik, Sayı: 35, 46-50, İstanbul. Karpuz, H. 1992. ‘Eski Antalya Evlerinde Süsleme’, Antalya IV. Selçuklu Semineri, 50-69, Antalya. Kuban, D. 1995. Türk Hayatlı Evi, İstanbul. Küçükerman, Ö. 1988. Kendi Mekanının Arayışı İçinde Türk Evi, İstanbul. Kunduracı, O. 1995. Batı Toroslarda Bulunan Geleneksel Konutlar, (unpublished PhD thesis, Konya). Kunduracı, O. 2002. ‘Batı Toroslarda Bulunan Geç Dönem Türk Evlerinde Ahşap Süsleme’, Türk Tarihi Ansiklopedisi: 18, 265-272, Ankara. Özkaynak, K. 1954. Akseki Kazası, Ankara. Özsait, M. 1980. İlkçağ Tarihinde Pisidya, İstanbul. Ramsay, W.M. 1960. Anadolu’nun Tarihi Coğrafyası, İstanbul. Sözen, M. 2001. Türklerde Ev Kültürü, İstanbul. Sözen, M.-Eruzun, C. 1992. Anadolu’da Ev ve İnsan, İstanbul. Umar, B. 1993. Türkiye’deki Tarihsel Adlar, İstanbul. Yarar, S. 2001. Geleneksel Akseki Evlerinde Tavan Süslemeleri, (unpublished thesis, Ankara).

Fig. 1: The Akseki region

139

SOMA 2009

Fig. 2: House of Mustafa Akman

Fig. 3: House of Orhan Can

Fig. 4: House of Mustafa Akman (front view)

Fig. 5b: Kiosk

Fig. 5a: Kiosk

140

Necla Akkaya: Timber Decoration in the Houses of the Akseki İlvat Villages

Figs. 6a-b: Doorway

Figs. 7a-d: Stove-hood

141

SOMA 2009

Figs. 8a-b: Window screen

Figs. 9a-b: Alcove

142

Necla Akkaya: Timber Decoration in the Houses of the Akseki İlvat Villages

Fig. 9c: Alcove

Figs. 10a-d: Ceiling (d-after S. Yarar)

143

144

The Excavations of the Kızılburun Column Wreck Orkan Köyağasıoğlu and Deborah N. Carlson Institute of Nautical Archaeology INA, Muğla, Turkey Nautical Archaeology Program, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas, U.S.A. Since 2005, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology continued the excavation of a Late Hellenistic – Roman era ship transporting a cargo of architectural marbles and lost off the Aegean coast at Kızılburun (Figure 1). The marble carrier currently under excavation is one of five shipwrecks discovered at Kızılburun on a 1993 INA survey directed by Cemal Pulak (Pulak and Rogers 1994: 17-21). This vessel was transporting a cargo of newlyquarried white marble from Marmara Island (ancient Proconnesus), when it sank off Kızılburun, probably some time in the first three quarters of the first century B.C. There are several features of the Kızılburun marble cargo that distinguish it from other shipwrecked marble shipments discovered around the Mediterranean: first, the depth of the site (45-50m) appears to have minimized significantly or prevented altogether any attempts to salvage artefacts from the wreck. Second, the largest and heaviest of the architectural marbles at Kızılburun are not blocks or monolithic column shafts, but eight large drums and a single Doric capital that together create most or all of a monumental Doric column, almost certainly destined to complete the façade of a temple. New temple construction in the Doric style, however, is a relatively rare phenomenon in the first century B.C. (Waelkens 1989: 57-65), which suggests that it will be possible to narrow the list of candidates to a handful of sites. Third, the unity and integrity of these eight drums, which were discovered stacked neatly in four pairs much like they must have been positioned inside the ship’s hold, implied that portions of the vessel’s wooden hull may be preserved beneath them (Figure 2). The opportunity to study and learn more about the construction details of what is likely to have been a purpose-built marble carrier was a compelling factor in undertaking this excavation. Two previous seasons of excavation have revealed that, in addition to the primary column cargo, the Kızılburun ship was also transporting smaller quantities of roughlyfinished marble objects, including pedestalled basins and grave markers (Carlson 2006; Daniel 2006; Trego 2006; Carlson 2007; Carlson forthcoming). Isotopic analysis indicates that the Kızılburun marble cargo originated on Proconnesus Island in the Sea of Marmara. Prior to the first century B.C., most of the marble quarried on Proconnesus was destined for regional applications at sites like Troy and Pergamum, but Kızılburun lies further south, and thus provides new evidence for a broadening export of Proconnesian marble at this time (See Ward-Perkins 1980; Walker 1985; Asgari 1990; Asgari 1992). The vessel’s ceramic assemblage, comprised of wine jugs (lagynoi), drinking cups (kylikes), plates, mould-made bowls, coarse

ware pans, lidded casseroles, and oil lamps, confirms that the ship likely sank in the first century B.C. (Figure 3). Nearly two dozen transport amphoras from the wreck include types from eastern Greece, the Black Sea, and Egypt, but the majority belong to the Lamboglia 2 type, produced in the Adriatic in the second and first centuries B.C. (Figure 4) The ongoing conservation, reconstruction, and analysis of this ceramic corpus may provide our best hope of refining even further the date of the Kızılburun shipwreck. In 2006, with the help of four 4,000-pound lifting balloons donated to us by Richard Fryburg of Subsalve, Inc., we began the process of rigging and moving offsite the wreck’s massive marble column drums, which weigh approximately seven tons a piece. Each drum was outfitted with a ‘basket’ of three nylon lifting straps, carefully worked into place under the very bottom surface, which was often situated directly atop fragmentary and very fragile wooden timbers. At the conclusion of the 2006 season, we had successfully and safely relocated half of the eight drums (nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8), leaving four drums and the column capital in situ; raising these remaining marbles was the focus of our efforts at the start of the 2007 season. Our first goal of the 2007 season was to complete the process, initiated the previous year, of ballooning off site each of the monumental seven-ton marble drums. We were extremely fortunate to have at our disposal an array of polyester lifting slings, manufactured by Lift-All, Inc. and provided at no expense to the Kızılburun project. These continuous loop slings, which stretch very little and are abrasion-resistant, made it possible to rig and lift each drum by the side wall, without disturbing any of the fragmentary wood remains preserved beneath. As we had little practical experience with this new technology, Research vessel Virazon’s captain Feyyaz Subay spent much of the first two weeks at Kızılburun experimenting with different combinations of slings and hitches, and testing them on several of the drums moved off site in 2006. In the end, we settled upon a triple choker hitch assembly, securing the opposing slings to one another with shackles to prevent the rig from riding too high or slipping off the drum. We proceeded with the same balloon configuration utilized in 2006, attaching two 4000-pound lift balloons to a chain directly above each drum, and securing the two other ‘control balloons’ to the top of the chain in approximately 3m of water. The two deeper balloons were filled first, and then the shallower two were filled remotely, via a hose supplied with air

145

SOMA 2009 from tanks in a dinghy at the surface. This use of control balloons near the surface ensured that when all the balloons were filled and the drum left the seabed, there was no chance of the balloons (and the drum attached to them!) becoming overly buoyant and shooting to the surface. Thus, when the upper balloons broke the surface of the water, a recovery dive team was dispatched to the wreck to complete the relocation of the drum to an open, sandy area away from the wreck. This process was achieved by filling smaller balloons attached to the drum with lines that ran through pulleys secured to the seabed. When the smaller balloons were inflated, they pulled on the lines that guided the drum downward onto the seabed (Figure 6). Most of the 2007 team spent the first week under water removing rocks and sand overburden from the area upslope of the drum pile. At the same time, a smaller group experimented with the lifting slings, carefully observing their properties under water by test-rigging drums 5 and 7, which had been moved off site in 2006. Next season, we removed the single six-ton Doric capital from the top of the drum pile, and began airlifting sand away from the centre of the remaining four drums in preparation for their removal. In fewer than two weeks, we safely and successfully lifted and moved the last four remaining marble column drums (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4). When we lifted the drum 4, it was possible to see that the bottom edge of the drum is distinguished by four small rectangular protrusions or ‘feet’. These feet are the levering bosses designed to facilitate the final positioning of the drum by sliding it along a stone foundation (WardPerkins 1971; Coulton 1974; Wurch-Kozelj 1988); their presence confirms not only that drum 4 was intended to serve as the bottommost drum, but also that we are dealing with a column of the Doric order, since Doric columns sat directly atop the foundation course and not atop a base like Ionic and Corinthian columns. With all the column drums safely relocated off site in 2007 season, we turned our attention toward the excavation and recovery of the fragmentary timbers that we had glimpsed beneath drums 5 and 6 during the previous summer season. Drum 6 was the last to be moved at the close of the 2006 season, leaving us time only to cover, but not investigate, the wood that was visible when the drum had been raised. With the drum-lifting now complete, we initiated excavation in U6 (which designates the area Under drum 6), where we uncovered, in the uppermost layer, five longitudinal planking runs, each 9-10cm wide and 2-5cm thick. One would expect a seagoing ship built in the first century B.C. to have been constructed by joining planks together at their edges using pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery (Steffy 1994: 25-78), but to date no clear evidence of such joinery has been identified among the remains discovered thus far at Kızılburun. Beneath these planks in U6 were six thick, transverse timbers, each roughly 10-12cm wide (sided) and 5cm

thick (moulded). These thick timbers were better preserved toward the interior part of the ship, but in only one case was it possible to identify what appears to be a clean, finished edge with original surface. It became increasingly apparent that the transverse timbers had been fastened fairly regularly with clenched copper nails, but the clenched nail tips appeared on the moulded, not the sided faces. In other words, these timbers were not attached to planking as one would expect to be true of a ship’s frames. On one of these six transverse timbers, two adjacent nail holes were visible. Although the nails were gone, it was possible to see, on the uppermost (sided) face of the timber, impressions where the nail heads had been, meaning that these two nails had been driven in from the inside, and not the outside of the ship; inasmuch as this is the only instance of such a pattern observed at Kızılburun to date, perhaps we are dealing with an example of a reused timber. Our work in U6 progressed slowly, due to the delicate and fragmentary nature of the wood remains. Once the six transverse timbers had been removed, we observed at least one additional timber, roughly square in crosssection, oriented longitudinally in the same manner as the thin planking atop the six timbers. Regrettably, there was not sufficient time to investigate this area completely, but the arrangement of the excavated timbers, the absence of mortise-and-tenon joinery, and the curious orientation of the clenched nails, suggest that the wood remains in U6 are not necessarily hull remains; rather they may represent part of an internal structure such as a pallet or other type of framework for supporting or bracing the drum(s). On the western side of the site, under drums 1, 3, and 5 we exposed, mapped, and raised four thick and roughlyworked rectangular marble slabs of varying dimensions (labelled BAP, BAR, BAS, and BAT). With the two slabs raised in 2006 (BAK and BAL), this brings the total number to six, oriented in a line parallel to the keel (or where the keel should be), on one side of the ship only (Figure 7). Around and beneath these marble slabs, we exposed fragmentary remains of additional wooden timbers, comprised primarily of more transverse timbers lying atop badly broken longitudinal planking. Four wood samples collected from U3 and analyzed by Israeli researcher Nili Liphschitz of Tel Aviv University indicate that the thin longitudinal timbers are of black pine (Pinus nigra) while the thicker transverse timbers are a species of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) (Figure 8). Black pine is a common species in the eastern Mediterranean, used for planking the hulls of ancient ships like the first century B.C. merchantman excavated at Madrague de Giens, France. The ancients knew ash to be a strong, durable hardwood with a high moisture content, which allowed it to be bent easily when green (Vitruvius de Architectura 2.9.11). The archaeological evidence for its use by ancient shipwrights, however, is scarce; three half-frames near the stern of the Madrague de Giens ship were of ash (Pomey 1982; Rival 1991: 152) suggesting it was well-suited for use in areas

146

Orkan Köyağasıoğlu and Deborah N. Carlson: The Excavations of the Kızılburun Column Wreck that required additional strength (Theophrastus Historia Plantarum 5.7.1-3). Our proficiency with the Lift-All slings made it possible to flip each of the eight drums 180° so as to expose the cleaner face, free of centuries of marine overgrowth. Each of the drums was then marked with small dots of highcontrast modelling clay and photographed extensively. The results are three-dimensional digital models of the eight drums and capital, which will aid our efforts to pinpoint the intended destination and function of this monumental column, as well as better understand the specific weight distribution inside the ship’s hold. In 2007, archaeological director Deborah Carlson visited the nearby site of Claros to view the remains of the Temple of Apollo. This was a Doric temple of white marble, initiated in the third century B.C. but still unfinished when the Greek travel writer Pausanias visited the site 500 years later (Pausanias Description of Greece 7.5.4). Excavations by French archaeologists throughout much of the 20th century have exposed significant portions of the temple’s foundations, subterranean oracular shrine, and Doric column drums, the dimensions of which bear a striking resemblance to the unfinished drums at Kızılburun (see de la Genière 1992; Şahin 1998; de la Genière 2003). With the successful relocation of the ship’s column capital and all eight drums, we estimate that the Kızılburun shipwreck excavation is nearing completion; of course, this estimation depends in large part on the quantity and quality of the unexcavated wooden hull remains, which are a complete unknown; either we have scratched the surface of what may be a well-preserved hull of the late Hellenistic period, or there is little left to uncover beyond the fragments that have been raised thus far. In either case, we aim to return to Kızılburun for 2009 excavation season to solve this interesting puzzle; in the interim, the summer of 2008 was a study season, dedicated to researching the thousands of artefacts already raised from this important shipwreck.

Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the hard working members of our archaeological field team, who came from Turkey, the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Greece, and Croatia. Also would like to thank to the National Geographic Society, Spiegel Television, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, Texas A&M University, and the directors and friends of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology for their precious supports for Kızılburun Project. We extend special thanks to our staff of hyperbaric physicians from İstanbul Üniversitesi Çapa Tıp Fakültesi, who helped us to safely complete more than a thousand and five hundered dives to the site in just ten weeks on 2007 season.

Bibliography Ancient Sources Pausanias 1935. Description of Greece, Trans. by Henry Arderne Ormerod, London, Harvard University Press. Vitruvius 1914. The Ten Books on Architecture, Trans. by Morris Hicky Morgan, London, Harvard University Press. Modern Sources Asgari, N. 1990. ‘Objets de marbre finis, semi-finis, et inacheve du Proconnese’. In: Pierre eternelle du Nil au Rhin: carrieres et prefabrication, M. Waelkens (ed.), 107-126, Brussels. Asgari, N. 1992. ‘Observations on two types of quarryitems from Proconnesus: column-shafts and columnbases’, In: Ancient stones: quarrying, trade and provenance, M. Waelkens, N. Herz and L. Moens (eds.), 73-80, Leuven. Carlson, D.N. 2006. ‘A Monumental Cargo: The Roman Column Wreck at Kızılburun, Turkey’, INA Quarterly, 33.1, 3-10. Carlson, D.N. 2007. ‘An Uplifting Summer: The 2006 Excavation Season at Kızılburun, Turkey’, INA Quarterly, 34.1, 3-10. Carlson, D.N. (Forthcoming). ‘A Marble Cargo of Monumental Proportions: The Late Hellenistic Shipwreck at Kızılburun, Turkey’. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting of The Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) in Aix-en-Provence, France, June 12-16, 2006, P. Jockey (ed), Aix-en-Provence. Coulton, J.J. 1974. ‘Lifting in Early Greek Architecture’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 91, 1-19. Daniel, J. 2006. ‘An Egyptian Amphora from the Kizilburun Shipwreck’. INA Quarterly, 33.1, 13-14. Dinsmoor, W.B. 1950. The Architecture of Ancient Greece: An Account of Its Historic Development, New York. Genière, J. de La, et al. 1992. Cahiers de Claros, vol. 1. Paris. Genière, J. de La, et al. 2003. Cahiers de Claros, vol. 2, L’Aire des Sacrifices. Paris. Pomey, P. 1982. ‘Le navire romain de la Madrague de Giens’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 133-54. Pulak C. and Rogers, E. 1994. ‘The 1993-1994 Turkish Shipwreck Survey’. INA Quarterly, 21.4, 17-21. Rival, M. 1991. La charpenterie navale romaine: Matériaux, méthodes, moyens, Paris. Şahin, N. 1998. Klaros: Apollon Klarios Bilicilik Merkezi, Istanbul. Steffy, J.R. 1994. Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station, Texas. Trego, K. 2006. ‘An Uninscribed Marble Grave Stele from Kizilburun’. INA Quarterly 33.1, 11-12. Waelkens, M. 1989. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Influence in the Imperial Architecture of Asia Minor’. In: The

147

SOMA 2009 Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, S. Walker and A. Cameron (eds.), 77-88, London. Walker, S. 1985. ‘The Marble Quarries of Proconnesus: Isotopic Evidence for the Age of the Quarries and for the Lenos-Sarcophagi Carved at Rome’, In: Marmi antichi. Problemi d’impiego, di restauro e d’identificazione, P. Pensabene (ed.), Studi Miscellanei 26 [1981-1983], 57-65, Rome.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1971. Quarrying in Antiquity: Technology, Tradition and Social Change, London. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1980. ‘The marble trade and its organization: Evidence from Nicomedia’. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 36, 325-338. Wurch-Kozelj, M. 1988. ‘Methods of Transporting Blocks in Antiquity’, In: Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade, N. Herz and M. Waelkens (eds.), 55-64, Boston.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

148

k

Orkan Köyağasıoğlu and Deborah N. Carlson: The Excavations of the Kızılburun Column Wrec

Figure 4

Figure 6

Figure 5

149

SOMA 2009

Figure 7

Figure 8

150

‘The Shipwrecks of Anatolia Project 2008’: Ancient Shipwreck Survey off the Bodrum Peninsula Orkan Köyağasıoğlu Institute of Nautical Archaeology, INA, Mugla, Turkey In October 2008, The Institute for Archaeological Oceanography (IAO) in conjunction with the Institute for Exploration (IFE) and Institute for Nautical Archaeology (INA) surveyed the deep waters around Yalıkavak (Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey). The main goal of Shipwrecks of Anatolia 2008 Project was to search for shipwrecks in depths greater than scuba diving limits. Wrecks discovered in deep water are usually in better condition as they cannot easily be reached by divers, trawlers, and coastal processes (Ballard, Hiebert et al. 2001: 607-23). Archaeological and oceanographical researchers therefore joined together to work off the Bodrum Peninsula, an area which was formed from tectonic and ancient volcanic activity (Ulusoy, Cubukcu et al. 2004: 71-96). In 2008 the Shipwrecks of Anatolia Project, mapped 104km2 of seafloor with side-scan sonar. This survey was performed in the deep waters (50-100m) north and south of Yalikavak harbour. An EdgeTech 4200-MP dual frequency (300/600 kHz) side-scan sonar (Figure 1) was towed between an altitude of 10-20m and a remotely operated vehicle (ROV), Hylas (Figure 2), was used to identify sonar targets. Unfortunately, trawling activity has been increasing in the Aegean Sea in the past few decades and this industry has been known to drag up ancient artefacts during their operations (Sakellariou, Georgiou et al. 2007: 365-81). Some shipwrecks have been found in heavily trawled areas but these were scattered and heavily damaged. The amphora cargos of the Yalıkavak I, Yalıkavak III, and Büyükkiremit I wrecks were broken and scattered around the wreck sites. The Yalıkavak II (Parker 1992: Nr. 1238, 453) wreck and its artefacts were more intact and undisturbed as it was more protected within the shelter of the Yalıkavak harbour entrance. All of these sites are in waters ranging between 50 and 100 meters in depth. Other ancient wrecks have been investigated along this coastline, including the Yassıada wrecks, and are in shallow water and accessible to divers (Bass and van Doorninck, Jr. 1971: 27). Before starting the survey, a boat was hired to carry all the research equipment, and some preparations and alterations were made to prepare the boat for surveying. During the four weeks of the survey only one day was lost due to heavy weather and some technical problems. On the first day of the expedition, 8th October 2008, a small search was made to relocate the Yalıkavak II wreck

and some fine adjustments were made on the side-scan sonar (Figure 3). This wreck was found by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology INA in 1992 and lies at a depth of 51 metres (Figure 4). The ship probably sank quite quickly after hitting the Göcük Burnu point possibly because of the “meltem” which blows heavily from the North Aegean Sea to the south in summer or perhaps the ship capsized in a rogue wave while trying to reach shelter. This wreck has been dated to first century B.C by it’s cargo of Lamboglia II amphoras from the Adriatic coasts. The length of the wreck is approximately 20 metres. On 9th October 2008, many sonar runs were done in North to South directions to relocate Yalıkavak I wreck which was discovered by the INA in 1967. A target was found at 82 metres depth (Figure 5), close to the 1967 coordinates, and, after a second pass, was identified as the Yalıkavak I wreck and later confirmed visually through ROV dives. This ship was carrying Koan Amphoras and has been dated to c. 1st century B.C. The wreck consists of a large scattered and semi-buried mound of amphoras that has been torn apart by trawling activities. There are relatively few intact amphoras visible but some are clearly buried more deeply and should be in better condition. There is no visible evidence for any anchors or other cargo except for the one main type of Koan amphoras. The IFE Hylas is actually the third underwater vehicle to visit Yalıkavak I. The first was the INA submarine Asherah in the 1960s, and the second was the COMEX submersible Remora. In the 1960s, sponge-dragger Mehmet İmbat found the upper part of a bronze statue of an African Boy (Figure 6), which on exhibit in the Bodrum Underwater Archaeology Museum. A bronze statue of the goddess Fortuna probably came from the same area and can still be seen in the İzmir Archaeology Museum. It is due to these finds that this area holds so much interest for archaeologists and other researchers. On 13th October 2008, after work on the Yalıkavak I Wreck, the ROV Hylas dived to one of the targets that had been found while searching the area with side-scan sonar at the beginning of the project. A wreck named the ‘Yalıkavak III – Pipe Wreck’ lies at a depth of 72. This was indeed an ancient shipwreck carrying a cargo of 50 to 100 terracotta pipes (Figure 7). The pipes were spread across a low circular mound approximately 30m in diameter, and piled on top of each other in places. Others were mostly buried in sediment. It was not possible to make a systematic coverage using the Hylas because of the difficulty of holding its position in rough water. These terracotta pipes 151

SOMA 2009 exhibit ridge marks along their bodies and have been dated to the Late Roman – Early Byzantine periods, although we are still researching a more precise dating. This wreck is important as it is the only wreck from antiquity found to have been carrying terracotta pipes. During the scanning search between Çavuş Adası and Kiremit Adaları on 15th October 2008, a target was found by side-scan sonar and the ROV was sent to investigate. This new wreck, called the ‘Çavuş Adası II – Rock Wreck’, was transporting approximately 100 or more small and medium (approx. 1m diameter) boulders, and many smaller, rounded stones.  All these stones are very silt-covered and encrusted. Conditions were poor as the current here was strong and visibility low after a night of rain. No complete amphoras could seen, but at least six sherds, including large body sections, and part of a very round base with a toe were identified.  Unfortunately, due to the low visibility, it was impossible to get a close look at the fragments to identify whether the jars have the striations typical of Byzantine pottery. The stones seem too large to be ballast stones but they are similar in size to the stones used to build the breakwater at Çavuş Adası (Figure 8), which is very near to the site and contains Byzantine pottery. It is possible that this was a Navis Lapidaria from late antiquity that might have sunk while carrying stones to Çavuş Adası. Although it is said that there are at least five possible shipwrecks in the area between Çavuş Adası and Kiremit Adası, we could not detect any of them as the side-scan sonar cannot be used in shallow waters. However, on 17th October 2008, the ROV Hylas explored a target found during the scanning around Büyük Kiremit Adası. The ‘Büyük Kiremit I’ find is a large ancient shipwreck with amphoras, although it has clearly been broken up and scattered by trawlers. Due to the low visibility, the limited time in this area and the amount of breakage, there was no chance to attempt an amphora count or better identification. At least two types of amphoras could be seen. Several smaller pieces that may have been table amphoras, or even a wine thief, possibly a cooking bowl, and some rod-like concretions, but these latter were not obvious anchors. Several large jar fragments, heavily encrusted, were noted

and have been tentatively dated as Late Roman or Early Byzantine, and possibly Pontic in origin. On 19th October 2008, during a sonar search, two targets, very close to each other, were detected at nearly 80m at the southern part of Çavuş Island. The results of a ROV dive showed that the first object was a rock-fall. When the second target, 40m away, was reached, it was seen that this object was a huge hole in the sand belonging to one of the many freshwater spring of the area. One of our goals for this survey was to locate a Swedish hospital ship that is said to have been sunk by a torpedo in World War II. We could not find any remains of this shipwreck, but some local fishermen told us that there is a submerged ‘bank’ tearing their nets near the survey area. This ‘bank’ is not noted on any maritime charts and is most probably the Swedish ship. According to the given coordinates this place is near the edge of Greek territorial waters so, unfortunately, we could not continue our survey there. The Swedish hospital ship will have to wait for our next survey season.

Bibliography Ballard, Hiebert et al. 2001. ‘Deepwater Archaeology of the Black Sea: The 2000 Season at Sinop, Turkey’, American Journal of Archaeology 105, 607-23. Bass and van Doorninck, Jr. 1971. ‘A Fourth-Century Shipwreck at Yassi Ada’, Journal of American Archaeology 75 (1), 27-37. Parker, A.J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, British Archaeological Reports International Series 580, Oxford. Sakellariou, Georgiou et al. 2007. ‘Searching for Ancient Shipwrecks in the Aegean Sea: The Discovery of Chios and Kythnos Hellenistic Wrecks with the Use of Marine Geological-Geophysical Methods’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36, 365-81. Ulusoy, Cubukcu et al. 2004. ‘Volcanic and Deformation History of the Bodrum Resurgent Caldera System (Southwestern Turkey)’, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 136, 71-96.

152

Orkan Köyağasıoğlu: ‘The Shipwrecks of Anatolia Project 2008’: Ancient Shipwreck Survey off the Bodrum Peninsula Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

153

SOMA 2009

Figure 7

Figure 8

154

Farmers and their Equipment as Depicted on some Reliefs from the Isauria Region Osman Doğanay Department of History, Kırklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey Grave stelae and ostotheches are the important archaeological artefacts normally encountered in the Isauria region, especially toward the west.1 Most of these finds exhibit very rich reliefs. Although most of these reliefs describe the deceased and his or her relatives, quite often they refer to the tools and equipment the person had used in his or her occupation and daily life. Among these plough and sickle are the most commonly seen, given the agricultural importance of the region. In this study, the farm tools and equipment, mainly ploughs, found in Isauria and its neighbourhood will be collectively evaluated, within the limitations of the preserved archaeological artefacts. Ancient depictions of farm equipment, especially around Taskent, Hadim and Bozkir (western Isauria) are usually divided into two groups: ‘pickaxe and sickle figures’ and ‘group ploughing scenes’. Two grave stelae with pickaxe and sickle decoration from the village of Bozkir-Pinarcik Village (Sekiz Sarnic Region) (Figures 1 and 2) 1) A flat grave stele used as building material in the wall of a house. The stele (0.55 x 0.80 x 0.40m) was brought from the Sekiz Sarnic Region, which is close to the village, in 1963 (Yılmaz 2005: 167, fig. 7). The front face of the stele is divided into three panels by four columns; the other face had been undecorated. The top section defined by the two middle columns features an arch and two figures. The left figure is male and the right female. The male figure, whose clothing shows some horizontal curves, was engraved rather roughly and is of poor quality. The female figure next to it is also roughly worked but the headscarf of the woman is easily seen. The right and left arms are bent at the elbow and gathered on the chest. The female figure is smaller than the man and her clothing drapes to her ankles. The right two columns of the stele are linked by a triangular top. In the area directly under this triangular top there is a tool resembling a farm pickaxe or similar. The left two columns of the stele are also linked by a triangular top, and the area under this shows a farm sickle. These figures, placed in the left and right panels, show that the deceased’s occupation in life was farming. The message ‘MNHMHC XAPIN’ is placed symbolically, in the simplest form, in the narrow area between the arch  The author would like to draw the attention of the scientific community to the fact that he has frequently encountered, all over the Anatolia, significant artefacts being used as ordinary building materials as mentioned in this paper. 1

covering the middle panel, and the triangular tops. At the top of the grave stele, which is dated to the Late Roman period, there is a two-line inscription in Greek saying ‘Aurelia Nounnos had this made in memory of her Tarasis’. 2) A grave stele found on the wall of a house in the village of Pinarcik village. The stele (0.46 x 0.54x 0.33m) has two columns on its visible front face. Three figures are seen under an arch which stands on the columns. One figure is placed outside the panel. All figures are quite roughly worked. Above one of the figures, and outside the panel, there is a pickaxe-like farming tool. On the other side of the panel there is a relief of a sickle used for harvesting (Yılmaz 2005: 169, fig. 8). At the top of the stele there are three lines and at the bottom there is a single line of inscription. According to these inscriptions, a male offspring had this stele made for his parents. The pickaxe and sickle decoration illustrates that the family’s occupation was farming. A grave stele with sickle from the Bozkir-Hisarlik Baglar Region (Figure 3) The artefact is being used as a block (0.51 x 0.65x 0.37m) in a wall of a mosque. It was brought from Sarnic or Baglar, both of which are in the close vicinity of Bozkir-Hisarlik. The visible front face of the stele is divided into three regions by four columns. Inside the middle panel there is an inscription and at the top there is an arch. The interior the right panel is empty but there is a triangular cover at the top. The left panel has a sickle relief and a triangular cover at its top (Yılmaz 2005: 127, fig. 5). An altar with sickle, pickaxe and ploughing scene (Figures 4a-b) This altar (in the care of the local authorities) is in the park next to the City Hall in Beysehir-Uskerler (Swoboda, Keil and Knoll 1935: 42ff). It is made of local limestone and measures 1.00 x 0.72 x 0.50m; it is generally well preserved and all four faces are decorated. On the front face there are an eagle and cornucopia surrounded by vines and grapes. The cornucopia is also filled with grapes. In between the vine branches there is a pickaxe and sickle. Above this there is a two-line Greek inscription. On one of the other altar faces there is a scene showing a farmer ploughing with his ox. The farmer and ox figures have been mutilated and the details on the other faces lost. 155

SOMA 2009 The farmer is shown stepping forward on his left foot; his right arm, bent at the elbow, is raised. The ox also moves forward. The same ploughing method still continues today in the mountains of Uskerler. On the third face of the altar there is a wreath made of leaves, with the centre showing a triskeles, with arms in the form of human legs. On the fourth face there is a roughly-worked relief resembling a shield (Baldıran 2009: 47, fig. 54). The pickaxe and sickle and the farming figure indicate that farming, mainly wheat production, and some other rural activities, such as fruit growing, were the main occupations of the area (which is still the case today for the same region, fed by the small streams of Lake Beysehir). The altar reliefs must be a thanksgiving to the local god from a local farmer. Two ‘farming’ reliefs from the high plateau of BozkirDibektasi (Figures 5 and 6) 1) Dibektasi is a high plateau extending along the flanks of the Yildiz Mountains, between Bozkir and Akseki. It is occupied by nomadic populations during the summer (Swoboda et al. 1935: 60ff) and this nomadic tradition is rooted back to ancient times, as can be seen from the artefacts that remain densely scattered all around this region.2 One such relief from the Bozkir-Dibektasi high plateau depicts a ploughing scene, although it is not completely understood. It is now in a wall of a simple house (Yılmaz 2005: 106, fig. 43). The top and left side of this block (0.32 x 0.53 x 0.35m) are broken. The rectangular relief is in the centre and shows the figure of a man ploughing with an ox. The head of the farmer is now missing. He steps forward off his left foot with his right foot behind. This side view of the farmer shows he has a belt around his waist. He is holding the handle of the plough with his right hand and his left hand is raised up and stretched forward, bent at the elbow. The ox, its head missing, is moving forward; the tail is curved over its flank. The plough, clearly seen between the farmer and the ox, is cleaving the soil. These features would indicate that this was the grave stele of a farmer. The Dibektasi high plateau is still a rich agricultural area today. Farming has clearly been an uninterrupted business from earliest times. 2) Another find from the high plateau is the body of an ostotech showing a ploughing farmer. The badly ruined find shows a figure of farmer ploughing a field with an ox drawing the plough. The head of the farmer is missing: a

feature often encountered. The farmer wears a knee-length garment fastened with a belt around his waist. The farmer is leaning forward and probably holds the plough with his right hand. The plough is mostly obliterated, only the edge remains. The head of the ox, pulling the plough, is broken off from the neck; the body and the legs are also chipped. Although badly damaged, the iconographic similarities with other samples found in and around the region leave no doubt that this scene depicts a farmer ploughing. From these finds we may understand that farming has a very long tradition in this fertile land of the Dibektasi high plateau. An ostotech with a farmer ploughing from the region of Taskent-Avsar Kayadibi (Figure 7) In the nearby region of central Isauria, which includes the modern town of Avsar, there are several important finds of antique materials and artefacts, especially in the area of Kayadibi. These include a recently recovered collection of ostotech bodies and covers with inscriptions and figures that strongly suggest that there was an ancient settlement here. As a result of investigations in the 1960s investigations, the ancient town of Olosada has come to light (Bean-Mitford 1970: 136ff). Inscriptions not only helped identify the town but also revealed details of gods and cults.3 One of the several ostotechs from the Kayadibi4 shows a figure of farmer ploughing. The bottom half of this narrow side of the ostotech is missing. Again the head of the ox has been broken off from neck up. The figure of the farmer is also missing parts of its head, body and right arm. The ploughing scene is based on a platform and the farmer, obviously a male, is leaning and stepping forward; he holds a long stick with his left hand with which to whip the ox pulling the plough. All four legs of the ox are visible. The farmer holds the plough with his right hand. He is wearing a knee-length garment fastened by a belt at the waist. The plough can be seen turning the soil. The upper part of the plough frame (gye) slopes out and extends forward from the lower part (or base) of the plough (elyma). Since there is no sense of depth to the figuring only one ox is visible. On the other narrow side there are four men sitting. One of the long sides depicts five women standing in elaborate full-length clothing (Baldıran 2005: 81). Because there are no inscriptions we do not have certain knowledge about the representations, but they probably feature the deceased and his family, who lived on this fertile land and made their livings by farming. A grave stele from Bozkir with a ploughing scene The material from which this head stone is made is some kind of porphyry. It was brought from Bozkir and is now   A crucial block with inscriptions, from the wall of a mosque, can now be seen at the entrance of a park in Avsar; see Doğanay 2005: 136. 4   There are six artifacts, four are ostotech bodies, and two are covers or lids. They were brought from Kayadibi and are now exhibited in the Seyh Samil park in Avsar. Ostotech bodies are in the shape of rectangular prisms, and the interiors are plain. Only one example has all four sides decorated; the other three have three decorated sides, with the backs left plain. For these finds, see Baldıran 2005: 68ff. 3

  The Dibektasi artefacts and architectural ruins show that this place was an important settlement (Bean and Mitford 1970: 113ff; Yılmaz 2005: 98), although a survey of the antique settlement has not yet been undertaken. The Dibektasi settlement has many good examples of Kybele Cult remains that are found in the Taurus Mountains, especially stepped rock monuments (Doğanay-Kaauğuz 2008: 55, fig. 16). 2

156

Osman Doğanay: Farmers and their Equipment: As Depicted on some Reliefs from the Isauria Region in the Konya Archaeological Museum (Inventory no. 72; 0.55 x 0.65 x 0.29m); portions of its left, right and top are missing. On the front face there is a scene of a farmer ploughing with a pair of oxen. He is leaning forward slightly and with his right hand he holds the plough; he is raising his left arm and holds a thin stick in his left hand with which to whip the oxen. The details of his face and clothing have worn away. The front ox has all four legs showing. Its tail is curved and upright. His big eyes, ear details, mouth and the whole head are shown in profile. The second ox shows only two legs, head and neck; the head has the same details as the front animal. There is an inscription under the relief, but unfortunately only two of the letters remain. These surviving letters, H and N, suggest that the whole inscription might be MNHMHC XAPIN, and thus a grave headstone. A sarcophagus with ploughing and sowing figures from the region of Karaman Madensehir (Degle ruins) (Figure 8) A relief depicting ploughing and sowing appears on a large sarcophagus found on the northern side of a hill in the Degle region, which is rich with Byzantine architectural ruins. This sarcophagus must have been used later as an altar. On the front face of the sarcophagus a man holds a bag in his left hand and sows seed with his right hand (Topal 2000: 20). It is clear that this farmer is seeding the field before it is being ploughed. Behind this farmer another figure is ploughing the field with two oxen. All these figures lack depth and are just profile views (Ousterhout-Jackson 2008: 517). Madensehir, where this sarcophagus is located, is still an important farming area today. Karadag, the only elevated site between Konya and Karaman, was always a settlement, not only from the Hittite period (Sayce 1909: 85), but also in Roman and Byzantine times (Ramsay-Bell 1909; Eyice 1971: 9ff), as well as today. Farming in this mountainous region, an abrupt elevation in the vast Konya plain, is still undertaken largely using basic methods and tools. The farming figures on the sarcophagus are important because they show that the settlements and cultures here were continuous and uninterrupted. A relief showing an oxcart from the town of Hadim Hamzalar (Figure 9) The block with the relief is being used as building material in the wall of a house in the town of Hamzalar. Made of local limestone (0.73 x 0.70m), its original purpose is unknown (Yılmaz 2005: 117, fig. 52). The relief depicts an oxcart with an ox pulling it; two men are in front and behind the cart. The figures lack depth and are shown only in profile view.

In this region, high on the Taurus Mountains, the oxcart is not common because of the rough terrain. Transportation is mainly done by pack-animals, however even today in some local areas the oxcart can occasionally be seen. Farming and farm implements Fruit growing is common in this region and some of the artefacts found reflect this. Many feature vines and ripe grapes (Figure 10). The daily lives of farmers are reflected in the reliefs on their headstones; they depict the tools used for fruit growing, among which are the sickle and special knife used to harvest grapes. Here, the sickle and this special harvesting knife show that the deceased was a fruit farmer, however in the Ivriz relief from the north of Isauria (Figure 11), the sickle, which is used for the same purpose, has a different meaning in the the relief featuring a deity (Şahin 1999: 170, fig. 2). Similarly, in Mesopotamia and some parts of Anatolia reliefs also show gods with sickles, either in their hands or tucked into belts around their waist. The deity gathers the first crop, or produce, before harvesting starts (Şahin 1999: 165ff, 170). The sickle used for harvesting wheat (‘drepne’ in Greek) is semicircular with a sharp edge. The handle is made of wood and the metal blade (Özdizbay 2004: 7). The large ones must have been for wheat harvesting and the small ones for cutting fruit crops. The plough, developed to break up the soil, which was an exhausting business,5 was named ‘arotron’ in Greek. The curved part of the plough, shaft, and base were caled ‘gye’, ‘histobe’ and ‘elyma’ respectively. The handle that the farmer pushed down was called the ‘ekhetle’, and the yoke ‘zygon’. The plough share (‘hynis’), made of bronze or iron, was attached to the base (Özdizbay 2004: 4). This type of plough was in use until recently, and, as discussed above, scenes of farmers and ploughing are commonly seen on ancient graves. We cannot be completely sure about the number of oxen employed in the scenes and the regions mentioned in this paper because of the basic nature of the carving and subsequent wear and damage. Since these figures lack depth it appears that only one ox is being used, but in some scenes, by counting the feet of the oxen, and when we take into account the functionality of the plough, we can assume that a pair of animals was common. Throughout ancient times, the ox was held in high esteem by farmers. Until the recent development of farming technology, Anatolian farmers still depended on their oxen. In Judaic beliefs oxen and ploughs are often mentioned. In Renaissance art the ox was a symbol of patience and strength. Local people living off the land respected ox and donkey alike. In early Christian art the ox was a symbol of sacrifice. The animal was also used to represent human dependence and servitude (Ferguson 1966: 22).   Odyssey, 18.3.

5

157

SOMA 2009 The bag used for holding seed during the sowing process was probably made of either straw or other vegetable, as can be seen in the example from the Karaman Degle ruins. The farm tool referred to above as pickaxe, could also possibly be a hammer of some type, but it is more likely to be a pickaxe or mattock. Most of the ancient farm tools in these regions were made of wood and therefore have not survived. Based on the depictions of the reliefs in the Isaura region, most of the farm tools used in ancient times can still be seen today – made necessary by the special local conditions. Bibliography Baldıran, A. 2005. Taşkent-Avşar Ostotekleri, Hacettepe Ünivesitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 2005/Cilt: 22/ Sayı: 2, 67 86, Ankara. Baldıran, A. 2009. Beyşehir Civarı Heykeltıraşlık Eserleri, Konya. Bean, G.E. and Mitford, T.B. 1970. Journeys in Rough Cilicia in 1964-1968, ETAM 3, Wien. Doğanay, O. 2005. Ermenek ve Yakın Çevresindeki Antik Yerleşim Birimleri, Konya. Doğanay, O. and Karauğuz, G. 2008. Stepped RockMonuments of Isauria Region, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 127, 45, 69, İstanbul.

Eyice, S. 1971. Karadağ ve Karaman (Çevresinde Arkeolojik İncelemeler) (Binbir Kilise), İstanbul. Ferguson, G. 1966. Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, NewYork. Ousterhout, G and Jackson, M.P.V. 2008. The Thousand and One Churches (by William M. Ramsay and Gertrude L. Bell), Philadelphia. Özdizbay, A. 2004. Eski Yunan’da Tarım, İstanbul. Ramsay, W.M. and Bell, G.L. 1909. The Thousand and One Churches, London. Şahin, M. 1999. Neue Beobachtungen zum Felsrelief von İvriz/Konya. Nicht in den Krieg, sondern zur Ernte: Der Gott mit derichel. 4. Anatolian Iron Ages Symposium Mersin 997. Anatolian Studies 49, 1999, 165 176. Sayce, A.H. 1900. The Hittite Inscriptions Discovered by Sir W. Ramsay and Miss Bell on the Kara Dagh, PSBA XXXI, 83 87, London. Swoboda, H., Keil, J. and Knoll, F. 1935, Denkmäler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien, Wien. Topal, C. 2000. Derbe Binbir Kilise Manazan Mağaraları Alahan Manastırı, Karaman. Yılmaz, M. 2005. Bozkır Çevresinin (Hadim-AhırlıYalıhüyük) Antik Tarihi ve Eserleri. Isauria, Konya.

Figure 1

Figure 2

158

Osman Doğanay: Farmers and their Equipment: As Depicted on some Reliefs from the Isauria Region

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

159

SOMA 2009

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

160

The Prometheus Myth and Ferula: A Mediterranean Ethno-Botanical Story Osman Doğanay,* Mustafa Cevik** and Hasibe Günay** *School of Liberal Arts, Kirklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey **Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey In this study our main goal is to demonstrate that the Prometheus myth, which is centred on the stealing of fire from the gods, by hiding it inside Ferula or Foeniculum branches, and giving it to humans, is indeed symbolically related to the aphrodisiacal and other health boosting powers of Ferula and Foeniculum plants. The beginning of the world and the adventures of mankind have always intrigued antique (and modern) human civilizations. Like other ancient civilizations, the Greeks were also hungry to acquire knowledge about the origins of water, seas, sky, and earth. Searching for explanations to the creation of the Universe, the Greeks considered all natural events and actions somehow as animate things, and, further, they assumed that these were controlled by their gods. According to the ancient Greeks, water, seas, sky, and earth were gods and considered all natural events and changes as battles and struggles among these deities.1 The Gaia (Earth), which was the basis of everything, was born out of the infinite emptiness called Chaos. Many creations stemmed from Chaos. Gaia gave birth to Uranus. Gaia and Chaos were the sources of many creatures. So how to explain the role of humans, who dwelled in the Universe, in all this? Gaia and her son Uranus unite and from this relationship the troublemaking Titans were born. Prometheus was a son of Iapetos the Titan (Eckhort 1957, 653-730), who had four sons altogether, including Menoitios and Atlas, who were agonizingly punished because they joined the Titans in their rebellion against the ultimate god, Zeus. The other two sons of Iapetos, Prometheus2 and Epimetheus had taken important roles in the creation of humans. Prometheus used his guile and acted respectfully toward Zeus and the other Olympus gods,3 but in reality he had deep antagonism in his heart towards them. In order to take revenge for his ancestors against Zeus, Prometheus had in mind to create humans,

  The Greek Myths, by Robert Graves (2004) is the major source for Prometheus mythology. In addition we thank Prof. Dr. Huseyin Dural for his help concerning the plants discussed in this paper. 2   Prometheus meaning ‘someone with a vision’, is a Sanskrit word. It might have derived from ‘paramantha’ (meaning fireball or swastika), which was believed to have been invented by a god. The ZeusPrometheus statue in Thulium shows the god holding a fireball in his hand. The name Prometheus could derive from the fire he stole without the knowledge of Zeus. In Abazine and Abhazca the word ‘Pri-Mi-tsa’ means flying fire. It is said that Prometheus played a role in the birth of Athena by striking Zeus’s head with an axe and thus making the birth of Athena possible (Hesidos, Theogonia 886-900; Pindaros, Olympion Odes vii.34ff; Apollodoros, i.3.6). 3   Prometheus was considered as particularly clever: Hercules sought his advice before he went looking for the Golden Apple (Apollodoros,ii 5; Herodotos, vii 124-127; Hyginus, Poeticon Astronomicon ii.15).

who would in turn create further troubles for the gods on earth. Prometheus mixed clay with his own tears and created humans from this.4 However these first humans were ill equipped to protect themselves and ate raw meat to survive: they did not know fire. Prometheus felt sorry and sympathetic for these early people and decided to give them the gift of fire to enable them to thrive and forge metals so as to make weapons and to plough their fields. One version of the myth goes that Prometheus took a branch of the tree called Ferula (Seytantersi Tree) (figure 1) and went to Lemnos (Limni) island.5 There he approached the fireplace of the lame god Hephaistos and stole a spark from the fire the god used to forge metals. He hid the spark inside a hollow flammable ferula branch and then delivered this precious gift to the humans he had created. Ferula trees are common in Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, and India (map 1) (Baytop 1963 and 1971). The vast area over which these trees spread gives us some clues as to the geographical region in which the Prometheus myth might have originated and spread. If we evaluate the taxonomy of ferula from the view point of their distribution in Anatolia, we find that ferula-type trees are, inter alia, native to the Mediterranean region, some parts of the Taurus and Amanos mountains, as well as some regions of eastern Anatolia (map 2) (Davis 1988, 451; Sağıroğlu 2005, 262ff). This might indicate that the myth originated in the East. In some sources, Prometheus used a Foeniculum sp. (instead of ferula sp.) branch to carry the fire he stole from Hephaestos’ forge. Ferula and Foeniculum are both in the family of Apiaceous and both are said to be aphrodisiacs. Their other properties include properties that help body strengthening, antibiotics, coughs, constipation, haemorrhoids, and urinary tract problems.6

1

  Ovidius, Metamorphoses i.ii.  Ferula has many different names today in Anatolia: cagsir, cansur, hiltik, asa out (Silifke), helizan, kerkur, siyabo, kasni (Sivas- F. szowitsiana), see, e.g. A. Baytop, 1997. Türkçe Bitki Adları Sözlüğü, 578. 6   Chemical analysis show that ferula roots contain 7.5% moisture, 5.5% ash, 0.6% volatile oil, tannin, starch, glucose, saponin, phytosterol, resin. Volatile oil is yellow, its density is 0.8730 at 20 Celsius, its optic index of refraction is 1.4750 at 20 Celsius and its optic transformation is +12.06 at 20 Celsius (Baytop, T. 1967, Ferula Türleri Üzerinde Kimyasal Araştırmalar II. Ferula meifolia. Ist. Ecz. Fak. Mec., 3, 47ff. 4 5

161

SOMA 2009 Although some Ferula types (Ferula communis) are toxic, some (i.e. F. assafoctida, F. persica) are used for medical purposes (Baytop 1963, 121 and 1971, 54). Fennel is a Mediterranean-originated grass type plant; long-living, it has a cylindrical stem and stands 1-2m high. It has compound leaves, and small yellow flowers. It contains volatile and nonvolatile oils. Its stem and leaves are used for flavouring vegetables and fish. Its fruit is used in the making of alcoholic beverages to add flavour (Guil-Guerrero 1999, 209-22; Edinçliler 2000). The chemical analysis of fennel shows that it contains Fe 26.56, Cu 1.71, Mn 4.62, Mg 0.02, Zn 3.40, Na 0.09, K 0.51, Ca 0.09, P 0.04. Because of its volatile oil content it is good for digestive problems, stomach, eyes, relaxation, and regulating the heartbeat (İncekara 2004). In ancient Greece fennel was called marathon, and is found written as ma-ra-tu-wo; this word is the origin of the place name Marathon (i.e. ‘place of fennel’) in Attica. As well as connotations for the discovery of fire, the word ‘marathon’ is therefore linked to cooking and health. In mythology, the safekeeping of fire and its transportation was the duty of women. Women were mothers and fire was at their fingertips. In Nard mythology the goddess Adieu guided her husband during his night-time journey. The native people of Seri used the word ‘km-kaak’ both for woman and fire. Even today in the ‘Dersim Dimili’ language, ‘woman’, ‘mother’ and ‘fire’ are used interchangeably: ‘Kle’ (mother), ‘Klam’ (fire), ‘Kalampo’ (flame). A Mexican proverb runs: ‘There is no flame better than women’. Women, fire, flame and light were used in the same sense. Woman obtained the fire after a struggle. In New Guinea, the making of fire by rubbing two pieces of wood together is called ‘mother is giving birth to fire’; the piece held horizontally is called ‘mother’, the other, held vertically, is called ‘child’ and ‘fire’.7 We think that the aphrodisiac effect of Ferula or Foeniculum was symbolized by the fire that had been carried inside this plant by Prometheus. Prometheus offered these hallucinating plants to humans to increase the sexual urge between couples, and in turn to promote

the generation of mankind. When the number of humans had increased he would have had his revenge on Zeus. The link between mythology and social life can be seen, for example, in the appearance of Ferula communis on some Greek coins.8 Humans thrived after Prometheus had given them fire.9 They were able to cook and keep warm during the cold months. However humans became excessive. Zeus knew this would be the case and for this reason had withheld fire from them. When man rebelled against the gods, Zeus became bitterly angry towards mortals. As punishment, he had Prometheus bound on the slopes of the Caucasian mountains and had an eagle everyday fly down and eat his liver. The pain was supposed to last for a thousand years, but Zeus forgave him after thirty years and let him become an immortal.

Bibliography Baytop, T. 1963. Türkiye’nin Tıbbi ve Zehirli Bitkileri, İstanbul. Baytop, T. 1971. Farmakognozi Ders Kitabı, Istanbul. Davis, P.H. 1988, Flora of Turkey and the Aegean Islands, Vol. 4, Edinburgh. Eckhort, L. 1957. ‘Prometheus’, RE XII-1, 653-730. Edinçliler, N. 2000. Ege Bölgesi’nde Sebze Olarak Değerlendirilen Yabancı Otlar ve Besin Değerleri (Master Degree Seminar, E .U.). Graves, R. 2004. (translated into Turkish by U. Akpur as Yunan Mitleri ), Istanbul. Guil-Guerrero, J., Madrid, P. and Torija-Isasa, M.E. 1999. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 38; 3, 209-222. İncekara, N. 2004, Ege Bölgesi’nde Sebze Olarak Tüketilen Yabani Kuşkonmaz, Sirken, Yabani Hindiba, Rezene, Gelincik, Çoban Değneği ve Ebegümecinin Bazı Kimyasal Analizleri. Sağıroğlu, M. 2005. Türkiye Ferula L. (Umbelliferae) Cinsi’nin Revizyonu (unpublished PhD dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara).

  http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace-/maroneia/i.html (10.12.2004). 9   It is believed that Phorones was the first human to use fire (Hyginus, Fabulae 143, 274; Apollodoros, ii.1.ı; Pausanias, i.39.4-6i ii.15.5-iv.40.5). 8

  (http://turabisaltik.blogcu.com/11431741/ Turabi Saltık ‘Ateşe Konuş Küle Ağla’ (20.03.2008, 24.07.2008). 7

162

Osman Doğanay, Mustafa Cevik and Hasibe Günay: The Prometheus Myth and Ferula

Map 1: Regions in the world where Ferula grows

Maps 2a-c: Regions in Turkey where Ferula grows (after Davis 1988, 451)

163

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1: Ferula sp.



Fig. 2: Foeniculum sp.

164

Byzantine Stone Artefacts in the Private Koyunoglu City Museum of the Konya Metropolitan Municipality Osman Kunduracı and İlker Mete Mimiroglu Department of Art History, Faculty of Education, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Konya (Iconium) was an important settlement that became Christian from the first century A.D., encouraged by Saint Paul’s teachings. The city is the largest in Turkey in turns of its extent and contains a cultural richness. Although there is little left to see today, except for two remnants from the Byzantine period in the city centre, there are Seljuk and Byzantine architectural remains in various museums. Our subject, the Private Koyunoğlu City Museum of Konya Metropolitan Municipality, holds the largest collection of Byzantine architectural features after the Konya Archeological Museum. The museum is based upon the private collection of İzzet Koyunoğlu (1900-1974). İzzet Koyunoğlu worked as a civil servant for the Turkish State Railways, and he collected works of various periods out of a love of archeology and art history acquired during his education in Germany (Anonymous 2003: 2-3). According to the will of İ. Koyunoğlu, this collection was transferred to Konya Metropolitan Municipality to found a city museum and was duly exhibited in the museum that opened in 1983 (Önder 1995: 202). The museum is especially rich in ethnographical works and is also important for the stone artefacts exhibited in its garden. Although our subject involves only 14 stones from the Byzantine period they are important in terms of their decoration. The stone artefacts includes of panels of ambon stair, templon column, templon architrave, panels, column capitals, column pillars, jamb pieces, and tombstones. The dimensions of the single panel of ambon stair in the museum are 0.74 x 0.57 x 0.52m and the thickness is 0.10m. (Figs. 1, 2). The panel is marble and one side is dressed (Anabolu 1988: 103). There is a peafowl figure placed in bas-relief technique in a frame consisting of an arrangement of two triangles. The foot of the figure is raised. According to the categorization of broken ambon pieces in Anatolia by U. Peschlow, a similar fragment can be found in the Afyonkarahisar, Kütahya, Uşak ve İzmir museums (Parman 2002: 134). The work may be dated to the middle Byzantine period according to its technical features and taking similar examples into account. The peafowl figure used extensively in Byzantine architectural plastic works on panels of ambon stairs, e.g. the Konya Archeological Museum (no inventory number), the Afyonkarahisar Archeological Museum (nos. 6545, 6546), the Milas Museum (nos. 1786, 1787), the Uşak Archeological Museum (no. 26), the İzmir Archeological Museum (no. 6350), the Kütahya Archeological Museum (nos. 7103, 7104) and the Eskişehir Archeological

Museum (Parman 2002: 135, 141, 146; Kunduracı 1989: 33; Mercangöz 1996: 84-85). Another piece in the museum garden (no. 55/677) is a templon column (Fig. 3). The octagonal shaped piece is broken at the bottom and the top, and its dimensions are 0.10m long by 0.63m high. The column is extensively decorated in bas-relief technique. The cross motive, which has shorter side arms, appears on all sides. There are stylistic leaf motives between the arms of the cross. Plant adornment compositions as three leaves and flower with seven leaves have been placed to the sides, consisting of knotted branches alternately between the cross figured surfaces. Another adornment composition used on the column is overlapping bird figures. The wings of the birds are emphasized in this composition, in which just the foot part of a figure can be seen, and single leaf plant adornments are added. Similar examples may be found in the Konya Archeological Museum (no. 1024), the Uşak Museum (no. 13.1.97; Parman 2002: 119) and the İznik Archeological Museums (no inventory number; Ötüken 1996: 72-73). The smaller features seen in the middle Byzantine period and the use of the polygonal sections help us to date the piece to this period (Ötüken et al. 2007: 30). Another item in the museum is a temple column piece that has no inventory number (Fig. 4). The piece is broken at the bottom and the top and its dimensions are 0.54 x 0.28m and a thickness of 0.63m. Two surfaces are decorated; the front shows passion flower and rosette motives in the medallions, which are tied by knotted motifs to the rectangular frame. There is triple-knitted motif on the lateral side of the piece. The work is dated to the middle Byzantine period by comparing it to the similar example in the Hierapolis Museum (no. K339/E212; Parman 2002: 126-127). Knotted medallion motifs are extensively used in Byzantine stone artefacts. Besides passion flower, rosette and cross motifs, especially on temple architrave pieces, human or animal figures may be seen. Knotted motifs are extensively used for temple surfaces or in cinctures. The templon architrave has no inventory number (Fig. 5). Two sides of the piece are broken; the bottom part is shorter than the top part and the front surface is dressed. There is floral adornment with five leaves placed in the medallion’s bottom tip, and tied together by knotting on the front surface. The part resting on the pillar can be clearly

165

SOMA 2009 seen at the bottom part of the architrave piece. The work is dated to the middle Byzantine period by its decoration. The other templon architrave pieces from the museum are from one original piece (Figs. 6, 7). One side of one fragment and two sides of the other (inventory nos. 2 and 3) are broken. When the two pieces are united, the dimensions are 1.07 x 0.28m, with a thickness of 0.27m. The surfaces show medallion motifs linked to each other and to the frame by the knotted motifs placed in a rectangular frame. Passion flower, star and eight-leaved rosette motifs can be seen. Rhombohedrons occur in the rectangular frame on the bottom surface of the pieces. In the centre of the rhombohedron can be seen cross and rosette motifs, with four leaves, in the medallion (Fig. 8). The pieces may be dated to the middle Byzantine period by the decoration. The fragment (no. 153) of the other architrave has dimensions of 0.36 x 0.21m, and a thickness of 0.22m (Figs. 9, 10). The front surface of the broken piece is dressed. Whether there is an adornment or not on the bottom surface of the architrave piece resting on the concrete floor could not be ascertained. In the rectangular frames linked by knotted motifs on the front surface of the piece, a lion figure and a cross motif placed in a medallion can be seen. The lion figure at the corner is standing and one of its front feet is raised. The mane is visible, as is the tail – ending with a stylistic leaf motif. Lion figures are extensively seen on Byzantine stones. They appear as single figures or struggling with other animals. Similar examples, especially used in the middle Byzantine period, can be seen in the Konya Archeological Museum (nos. 104 and 679) and the Afyonkarahisar Archeological Museum (no. 1397). The work is dated to the middle Byzantine period by comparing it with other examples. The single panel piece in the museum is very interesting. Its dimensions are 0.26 x 0.24m with a thickness of 0.8m. There is damage to all sides. One face is decorated in basrelief technique and shows a human figure (Figs. 11, 12). The head of the figure is haloed. The bald and bearded figure is probably holding in his hand an object that may be a book. The identification of the broken figure cannot be determined exactly as there is no inscription on it. Similar figures may be seen in the Aydın Archeological Museum, where it is identified as St Paul (no. 6469) and in the İstanbul Archeological Museum, where it is labelled as Saint Damianos (no. 941/T; Ödekan: 71,221). Panels depicting Jesus, the Infant Jesus, the Madonna, etc. were found in the İstanbul Saraçhane excavations (Harrison 1986: 156-157). While the St Paul and St Damianos representations are dated to the middle Byzantine period, the Saraçhane antiquities are tentatively dated to the 6th century. Considering similar examples, it would seem reasonable to date the piece from the Konya Koyunoğlu Museum as middle Byzantine period.

The single column capital in the museum is numbered 56/698 (Fig. 13). The top of the piece is 0.20 x 0.21m, with a height of 0.31m; the diameter of the bottom is 0.20m. There are twelve-armed rosette motifs and Malta cross in the medallions that are linked with knotted motifs on the body surface of the impost (truncated pyramid) shaped capital. The arms of the cross and the centre of the cross are emphasized by the holes in the cross motifs. There is a collar which has a stylized herringbone motif under the body of the capital. The impost (truncated pyramid) capitals originated in the first half of the 6th century, as found in İstanbul (Temple 2001: 243). Beautiful examples of these capitals are found in İstanbul’s Ag. Sophia, and were also used in the middle Byzantine period. Very similar capitals to that from the Koyunoğlu Museum are found in the Akşehir Archeological Museum, Karaman village, near Alabanda, and the Tyre Archeological Museum (Dellert 1997: 75). Although the dimensions of the work are smaller, it has nearly the same style and the same adornment program (Ödekan 2007: 273). As the capital in the Tyre Archeological Museum is dated between the 11th and 12th century, it is reasonable to date our example similarly. The dimensions of the single column pillar in the Koyunoğlu museum are 0.58 x 0.22m, with a height of 0.37m. Its inventory number is 858/759 and is linked to a double pillar. This style, called short or flat by Semavi Eyice, was used especially in the early Byzantine period in the middle Anatolian region. The base may be dated as early Byzantine period by considering similar examples (Alp 2001: 27). Another fragment in the museum is a jamb piece (no.60/703) (Fig.14). The dimensions of the piece are 0.27 x 0.18m, with a height 0.53m; it is broken at the top. The decorated surfaces include a heart motif linked to a medallion by knotted motifs and a medallion placed in a rectangular frame at the top of the front surface, one of which is separated into two by a moulded cincture. The bottom part of the front surface of the jamb has been ordered as five parts, the bottom parts of three of these have been rounded. On the surfaces of the some parts there is a soffit motif at the top, and at the bottom a triple composition like that on the front surface. The work is dated to the middle Byzantine period by its decoration. The single tombstone in the museum is dated to the Byzantine period (no. 732) (Fig. 15). The rectangular stone has dimensions of 0.57x 0.59m and is 0.37m thick. There is a two-line inscription at the top, another single line at the bottom, and four lines in the centre of the piece. This inscription in the middle is placed in a detailed tabula ansate. A Latin cross in a four-parted medallion is seen at the top. Decoration includes a stylized tree motif in a triangular frontal. Grapes and branches are seen between the triangular frontal and the central medallion. A very similar stone can be seen in the Konya Koyunoğlu Museum (no. 1302). The piece, dated 3rd and 4th century

166

Osman Kunduracı and İlker Mete Mimiroglu: Byzantine Stone Artefacts in the Private Koyunoglu City Museum A.D. came from Akören (Mclean 2002: 75). Another similar stone exists in Akören (Calder and Cormack 1962: 14-15). A passion flower is seen instead of a cross in the medallion. This stone may be dated to the 3rd and 4th century A.D. taking similar examples into account. The find place of the work is unknown, but as the similar items are from Akören we may suggest that these kinds of tombstones were produced in that region. For this reason we think that our tombstone has been taken from Akören. The inventory number of the unidentified fragment from the Koyunoğlu Museum is 13 (Fig. 16); its dimensions are 0.49 x 0.22m, with a thickness of 0.14m. A cross motif is in the center of the front surface and two bird figures are placed on both sides of the cross. The details on the figures cannot be seen because of the damage to the item. A kantharos or bird figure near the two sides of the cross is seen on many samples of mosaic and Byzantine architectural features. A similar decoration to this composition in Konya (where generally peafowl figures are preferred) is seen on a floor mosaic (Mimiroglu 2006: 145) and items with inventory numbers 198 and 1980.12.1. Other similar examples can be seen in the Afyonkarahisar Archeological Museum (nos. 1394, 1433-34, 1500), the Seyitgazi Archeological Museum (no. A.856/85), the Uşak Archeological Museum (no. 13.1.94), and the Eskişehir Archeological Museum (nos. 102.80, 18.80). The last piece in our group is an Islamic period tombstone that has no inventory number. A Byzantine period stone has been reused. The original function of the piece cannot be determined exactly as the motifs have been erased largely in its reused form. Arabic script in two lines on the front surface of the single decorated side, and a rhombohedron placed in a rectangular frame at the bottom are seen. The bottom and top sides of the rectangular frame end in knotted motifs. This decoration, also seen at the 2nd and 3rd pieces of the templon architraves that we researched above, makes us think that this piece might be dated to the middle Byzantine period. Although the original find places of the 14 stone items found in the Private Koyunoğlu City Museum of Konya Metropolitan Municipality are unknown, they are important in terms of their stylistic and decorative compositions. The pieces are interesting in that they feature animal (especially peafowl) and human figures as well as decoration that can be evaluated within the artistic tradition of that period. In ancient times the peafowl was considered immortal because its meat is resistant against decay, as well as for the richness of its plumage. The figure accepted as a bird of paradise in middle-Christian art has been used extensively in Byzantine arts (Parman 1993: 391). Another important bird featured in Byzantine picture art is the dove. This bird symbolizes the soul in Christian iconography and is also a symbol of purity and peace (Ferguson 1966: 22). Other birds often featured include sparrows, partridges, and birds of prey. These birds,

symbolizing the soul in the Byzantine period, are in many tombs. In this sense, the large numbers of bird representations seen in the Koyunoğlu and the Konya Archeological Museums are striking. The other interesting piece is the figure of the ‘saint’. It is unique in Konya rarely seen in other museums. As a conclusion, the Koyunoğlu Museum is important not only for holding works from the Seljuk and Ottoman periods, but also because of its stone artefacts from the Byzantine period. New data about the architecture and art of Christianity in the region could be revealed by studies of similar items in other museums as well.

Bibliography Alp, A.O. 2001. ‘Bizans Mimari Plastiğinde Terminolojik Sorunlar’, Sanat Tarihinde Terminoloji Sorunları Semineri I, 25-30, Ankara. Anabolu, M.U. 1988. ‘Batı Anadolu’da Bulunmuş Olan Yayımlanmamış Tavus Kuşu Motifli Mimarlık Elemanları’, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi, Issue:27, 101112, Ankara. Anonymous, 2003. Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi A.R. İzzet Koyunoğlu Şehir ve Müze Kütüphanesi Rehberi, Konya. Calder, W.M. and Cormack, J.M.R. 1962. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, Vol: III, Manchester. Dennert, M. 1997. Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle, Bonn. Ferguson, G. 1966. Sign & Symbols in Christian Art, New York. Harrison, R.M. 1986. Excavations at Saraçhane in İstanbul, Vol: 1, Washington. Kunduracı, O. 1989. Konya Müzelerindeki Bizans Devrine Ait Tezyinatlı Mimari Parçalar, Konya, 1989 (Selcuk University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Archeology, unpublished MA Thesis). Mclean, B.H. 2002, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Konya Archaeological Museum, Ankara. Mercangöz, Z. 1996. ‘Milas Müzesi’ndeki Bizans Ambon Elemanları’, Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, Issue:VIII, 81-98, İzmir. Mimiroğlu, İ.M. 2006. ‘Konya’nın Bizans Mimarisi’, İpek Yolu Konya Kitabı IX, 139-171, Konya. Ödekan, A. 2007, Kalanlar 12. Ve 13. Yüzyıllarda Türkiye’de Bizans, İstanbul. Önder, M. 1995. Türkiye Müzeleri, Ankara. Ötüken, Y. 1996. Forschungen im Nordwestlichen Kleinasien Antike und Byzantinische Denkmaler in der Provinz Bursa, Tübingen. Ötüken, S.Y., Parman, E. and Doğan, S. 2007. ‘Mimarlık Bezemesinde Taş Eserler’, Kalanlar 12. ve 13. Yüzyıllarda Türkiye’de Bizans, 29-33, İstanbul. Parman, E. 2002. Ortaçağ’da Bizans Döneminde Frigya (Phrygia) ve Bölge Müzelerindeki Bizans Taş Eserleri, Eskişehir. Parman, E. 1993 ‘Bizans Sanatında Tavus Kuşu İkonografisi’, Sanat Tarihinde İkonografik

167

SOMA 2009 Tarihinde Terminoloji Sorunları Semineri I, 239-251, Ankara.

Araştırmalar ‘Güner İnal’a Armağan’, 387-393, Ankara. Temple, Ç. 2001. ‘Erken Bizans Dönemi Sütun Başlıkları Tipleri ve Terminolojisi Üzerine Bir Çalışma’, Sanat

Fig. 1: Ambon stair

Fig. 2: Drawing of panel of ambon stair

Fig. 3: Templon column (inv. no. 55/677)

Fig. 4: Templon column

168

m

Osman Kunduracı and İlker Mete Mimiroglu: Byzantine Stone Artefacts in the Private Koyunoglu City Museu

Fig. 5: Templon architrave

Fig. 6: Templon architrave (inv. no. 2)

Fig. 7: Templon architrave (inv. no. 3)

Fig. 8: Drawing of templon architrave (inv. no. 3)

169

SOMA 2009

Fig. 9: Templon architrave (inv. no. 153)

Fig. 11: Panel

Fig. 10: Drawing of templon architrave (inv. no. 153)

Fig. 12: Drawing of panel Fig. 13: Column capital (inv. no. 56/698)

Fig. 15: Tombstone (inv. no. 1302)

Fig. 14: Jamb piece (inv. no. 60/703)

Fig. 16: Unknown fragment (inv. no. 13) 170

A Stylistic-Syntactical Analysis of Nabataean Painted Fine Ware Renate Storli Department of Classical Archaeology, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

The Nabataeans are known historically since the second half of the 1st millennium BC as a nomadic people living in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula, where they controlled the trading routes between Southern Arabia and the Mediterranean (Fig. 1). The Nabataean kingdom reached its zenith in the 1st century BC during the reign of Arethas III Philhellenos (85-62 BC), who eventually became a client king of the Roman Empire. In AD 106 the Romans annexed the kingdom of Nabataea and reorganised it under their rule as provincia Arabia.1 Nabataean Painted Fine Ware (NPFW) was created in the second half of the 2nd century BC and was in use until the time the Nabataeans were incorporated into the Roman Empire in AD 106. The subject matter of my Master’s thesis was the formal assemblage of NPFW bowls, which are decorated with ornamental patterns only on the inside, as well as an examination of whether the stated analogies from linguistic studies between formal style and languages can be applied to archaeological material. Using so-called ‘style-grammar’, my main goal was to develop an efficient and applicable method for describing decoration. Stylistic analysis is one of the oldest methods in archaeology.2 The use of a style-grammar is a rather unexplored field within this methodological field, nonetheless, it has in the past been tested on various art forms (e.g. body paint in African tribes and the decoration of Peruvian Indian pottery).3 Two main methods were developed:4 a descriptive and a generative one. The descriptive style-grammar aims to analyse the decoration by breaking down the composition into smaller singular elements and replacing these with symbols to construct a grammar.5 The generative style-grammar aims to create

  Dolinka 2003: 6-8. For the Nabataeans in general, see also Starcky 1955; Glueck 1965; Hammond 1973; Negev 1977: 520-686; Bowersock 1983; Wenning 1987; Petra und die Weihrauchstraße, Ausstellungskatalog Zürich/ Basel 1993; Lindner 1997; Netzer 2003; www.auac.ch/bns/ (AUAC – Association for the Understanding of Ancient Cultures Bulletin of Nabataean Studies). For Nabataean painted pottery, see especially Negev 1974; Idem 1986; Schmid 2000; Idem 2001: 427-36; Dolinka 2003. 2   For different definitions of style within Classical Archaeology see Bernbeck, R. (1997) Theorien in der Archäologie, 231-50; Lang, F. (2002), Klassische Archäologie. 3   For the appliance of style-grammar on visual material in general, see Muller 1966; Faris 1972; Mead, Birks et al. 1975; DeBoer 1975; Green 1979: 13-31; Schneider, Fehr et al. 1979: 7-41; Roe 1980: 42-71. 4   The use of style-grammars on archaeological material has been widely criticised, see especially Hymes 1969: 91-119; Hardin 1983: 309-22. 5  For the descriptive style-grammar, see Wright, H. T. (1981) Ceramics of the Uruk, Jemdet Nasr, and Early Dynastic Phases. In: Wright, H. T. ed., An early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations of Tepe Farukhabad. 1

new and legitimate decoration schemes from the derived style-grammar by using the existing decoration elements.6 The idea behind my thesis was to develop a grammar for NPFW. For this experiment the bowls and sherds were subdivided into decoration-schemes according to the formal composition of their decoration. Each decoration-scheme was then examined as a specific group. The decoration was then ‘dissolved’ and each singular decoration element replaced with letters and numbers, i.e. in the form of a descriptive style-grammar. The repertoire of the decoration on the NPFW bowls is rather limited, and the material could easily be divided into five motif groups (Fig. 1)7 and ten decoration-schemes (Fig. 2).8 Each decoration element was given a distinct number according to its shape. The decoration could then be schematically allegorised according to linguistic principles (Fig. 3). The most basic theory behind the thesis is that language is a social phenomenon that presupposes a common repertoire of sounds and that speakers of a certain language have the same comprehension of a particular combination of these sounds. If the succession of the sounds is altered, countless combinations of words and further countless combinations of sentences can be produced. However, only the sentences that follow a particular and specific syntax can be considered grammatically correct.9 The NPFW decoration style can be compared to the English language: in the English language one can formulate an innumerable number of sentences by knowing English grammar and vocabulary. Also, by knowing the decoration-scheme and the different decoration elements the painter is able to paint innumerable different decorations. The main questions in the thesis were: to what extent can this basic theory be applied to NPFW bowls? In addition, if one knows the Nabataean grammar – figuratively speaking – can one identify fakes, or copies, as one can identify a native speaker from a non-native speaker? Finally, perhaps the most important question to be posed: to what extent is

  For the generative style-grammar, see Faris 1972; Glassie, H. (1975) Folk Housing in Middle Virginia; Muller, J. (1979) Structural studies of art styles. In: Cordwell, J. ed., The Visual Arts: Graphic and Plastic, 139211. 7   Hammond (1959) was the first to publish a detailed analysis of the NPFW. In his study he was able to isolate 173 ‘pattern components’ and divide them into four ‘Pattern Families’. Hammond’s work can thus be considered the origin for this thesis. 8   As for the decoration-schemes, Schmitt-Korte has published several works on the matter, e.g. Schmitt-Korte (1968; 1989). 9   Christensen 1988: 13-14. 6

171

SOMA 2009 it acceptable to draw an analogy between formal style and language? To implement the ‘allegorisation’ of the Nabataean decoration, a style-grammar explicitly for NPFW had to be constructed. The following rules were defined: (a) The bowls or the sherds had to be described from the lip to the base. This means that the description of the body was divided into three levels: (I) lip, (II) body and (III) base. (b) If a level was not preserved, it was marked by: --(c) The total composition was marked with an S. (d) The decoration elements were divided into three groups according to their significance for the total composition: The A-element signified the main element, which determines in which the decoration scheme that the composition belongs; the B-element is the supplementary element that emphasizes the visual impression of A; while the C-element supplements the total composition. (e) The three decoration levels are divided by the following symbol in the allegorisation: + (f) Not preserved or not existing parts are marked with [...] (g) Repeating elements are marked with [x and number] (h) If the decoration of a bowl only has two levels, the missing level is marked with [***] The following example shows the practical transformation of the decoration to the grammar (Fig. 4). The composition consists of five different elements of decoration: (b101), (d500), (d501), (d563), and (f100), of which the decoration element (d501) is repeated six times. The vessel consists of three levels: Lip (I), body (II), and base (III). Compared to a real sentence it would contain an adverbial phrase, a verbal phrase, a nominal phrase and a secondary nominal phrase. Syntactically, the predicate - here lived - is the main element in a sentence (A). To have a grammatically correct sentence one also needs a subject – in this case the Nabataeans (B). The questions when and how the Nabataeans lived are most certainly interesting questions, but for the composition of the sentence they are not required (C). After having sorted all Nabataean ceramic material for the thesis into decoration-schemes and having applied the NPFW style-grammar, tendencies and preferences in the formal composition could be stated for each scheme. As for the example mentioned above, the composition belongs to the Radial scheme. For this particular decoration-scheme four tendencies to describe the typical radial Nabataean decoration could be stated: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A(Lines) + C(a500 + f100) A(Dots) + C(a500 + f100) A(b101) + B(Vegetal) + C(Lines + Dots + f100) A(b101) + B(Vegetal) + C(Vegetal + f100)

To verify the adaptability of the developed Nabataean style-grammar and the algorithms, the so-called Pseudo-

Nabataean pottery (also known as Painted Jerusalem Bowls) was used as comparison material.10 The PseudoNabataean pottery resembles the Nabataean stylistically, but differs from it both macro- and microscopically. The pottery can easily be divided into the different decorationschemes, but after applying the NPFW style-grammar to the Pseudo-Nabataean pottery, divergences from the NPFW style-grammar are apparent through the allegorisation. Furthermore, these divergences can be interpreted either as imitations or innovation of the NPFW.11 The allegorisation in general showed that the NPFW has a very regular composition. Only 91 different decoration elements could be identified, and their preferred composition was very confined. This further leads to the conclusion that the painters were committed to certain normative rules. The aim, to create an efficient and applicable method to describe decoration using a descriptive style-grammar, proved to be successful. The transformation of decoration elements to symbols proved an applicable way to sort a great amount of pottery into schemes. Each scheme could be reduced into a few formulas, depicting their characteristic composition, and hence supported the thesis of an existing connection between language and formal style.

Bibliography Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Bowersock, G.W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Christensen, K. K. 1988. Likheter mellom språk. In: Simonsen, H. G., R. T. Endresen, and E. Hordhauger eds., Språkvitenskap. En elementær innføring. DeBoer, W. R. 1975. The Ontogeny of Shapibo art: Variation on a cross. Dolinka, B. J. 2003. Nabataean Aila (Aqaba) from a ceramic perspective. British Archaeological Reports International Series, 1116. Glueck, N. 1965. Deities and Dolphine: The Story of the Nabataeans. Green, R. C. 1979. Early Lapita art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in Ceramic, Barkloth, and Tattoo Decorations. In: Mead, S. ed., Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania, 13-31. Hammond, P.C. 1959. Pattern Families in Nabataean Painted Ware. American Journal of Archaeology 63, 371-82.

10   The term ‘Pseudo-Nabataean’ was first used by Mazar 1969, and resumed by Avigad 1983. The term Painted Jerusalem Bowls was first introduced by Perlman et al. 1986, while Bar-Nathan 2006 uses the term Jerusalem Painted Bowls. 11   The comparison with Pseudo-Nabataean pottery is also an example of the use of the generative style-grammar.

172

Renate Storli: A Stylistic-Syntactical Analysis of Nabataean Painted Fine Ware Hammond, P.C. 1973. The Nabataeans – Their History, Culture and Archaeology (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 37). Hardin, M.A. 1983. Applying Linguistic Models to the Decorative Arts: A Preliminary Consideration of the Limits of Analogy. Semiotica 46 (2/4) 309-22. Harding, G.L. 1946. A Nabataean Tomb in Amman. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 12, 58-62. Hymes, D. 1969. Linguistic Models in Archaeology. In: Gardin, J.-C. ed., Archéologie et calculateurs. Problèmes sémiologiques et mathématiques, 91-119. Lindner, M. 1997. Petra und das Reich der Nabatäer. Mazar, B. 1969. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Eretz Israel 9, 161-74. Mead, S.M., L. Birks, and H. Birks and E. Shaw 1975. The Lapita Pottery style of Fiji and its associates. The Polynesian Society of Memoir 38. Muller, J. 1966. An experimental study of stylistic analysis (Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University). Negev, A. 1974. The Nabataean Potter`s Workshop at Oboda, Rei cretariae romanae fautorum acta, Suppl. I. Negev, A. 1977. The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II (8), 520-686. Negev, A. 1986. The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda. Final Report, Qedem 22. Netzer, E. 2003. Nabatäische Architektur. Perlman, I., J. Gunneweg, and J. Yellin 1986. PseudoNabataean Ware and Pottery of Jerusalem. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 262, 77-82.

Roe, P. G. 1980. Art and Residence among the Shapibo Indians in Peru. American Anthropologist 82 (1), 4271. Schmid, S.G. 2000. Die Feinkeramik der Nabatäer. Typologie, Chronologie und kulturhistorische Hintergründe. Petra - Ez Zantur II. Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen Teil 1, Terra archaeologica 4. Schmid, S.G. 2001. The impact of Pottery Production on the Sedentarisation of the Nabataean. In: Brandt, J. R. and L. Karlsson eds., From Huts to Houses. Transformations of ancient Societies, 427-36. Schmitt-Korte, K. 1968. Beitrag zur nabatäischen Keramik. Archäologischer Anzeiger 83, 496-519. Schmitt-Korte, K. 1989. Die bemalte nabatäische Keramik: Verbreitung, Typologie und Chronologie. In: Lindner, M. ed., Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer. Lebensraum, Geschichte und Kultur eines arabischen Volkes der Antike, 205-27. Schneider, L., B. Fehr, and K.-H. Meyer 1979. Zeichen – Kommunikation – Interaktion. Zur Bedeutung von Zeichen-, Kommunikations- und Interaktionstheorie für die Klassische Archäologie. Hephaistos 1, 7-41. Starcky, J. 1955. The Nabataeans. A Historical Sketch. Biblical Archaeologist 18, 84-106. Wenning, R. 1987. Die Nabatäer – Denkmäler und Geschichte. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des archäologischen Befundes, Novum Testamentum et Oriens Antiquus 3.

173

SOMA 2009

Fig. 1 The Nabataean kingdom with its principal caravan routes and settlement area (Netzer 2003: 6)

174

Renate Storli: A Stylistic-Syntactical Analysis of Nabataean Painted Fine Ware

Fig. 2 Decoration elements (a: Linienmotive; b: Punktmotive; c: Geometrische Motive; d: Vegetative Motive; f: Andere Motive)

175

SOMA 2009

1 - Radialer Dekor

2 - Konzentrischer Dekor

3 - Wirbeldekor

4 - Asymmetrischer Dekor

5 - Flächendekor

6 - Antithetischer Dekor

7 - Dreifelddekor

8 - Dreieckdekor

9 - Sterndekor

10 - Kreisdekor Fig. 3 Decoration schemes (1: Bar-Nathan 2006: 297, Pl. 54.40; 2: Negev 1974: 15, Pl. 4.6; 3: Idem 1974: Pl. 4.4; 4: Schmitt-Korte 1968: 512, Abb. 7.38; 5: Negev 1986: 57, Fig. 407; 6: Glueck 1965: Pl. 76; 7: Idem 1965: Pl. 73a. 74a; 8: Harding 1946: Pl. XX,21; 9: Negev 1986: 51, Fig. 370; 10: Bar-Nathan 2006: 295, Pl. 53.38)

176

e

Renate Storli: A Stylistic-Syntactical Analysis of Nabataean Painted Fine War

Fig. 4 Example for an allegorisation

177

178

Archaeological Investigations on Istanbul’s Lake Kucukcekmece and River Basin Sengul Aydingun and Hakan Oniz Department of Archaeology, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey Underwater Research and Imaging Centre, Eastern Mediterranean University-Magusa, TRNC The ‘Istanbul Prehistoric Researches’ (ITA) unit, with an international team, began archaeological studies of areas of coastline on Istanbul’s European side.1 During these studies evidence regarding Prehistoric, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantium times were found. The archaeological importance of Yarımburgaz Cave in prehistoric times is known. In 2007 some evidence was discovered for a PPNB Neolithic settlement at Avcılar Firuzkoy on the shores of Lake Kucukcekmece. Because of well-arranged stone rows on the peninsula’s edge, and reaching into the lake, this area was chosen for studies in 2008. Geo-archaeological studies began in 2008, conducted by teams from Bristol and Yıldız Teknik universities. The underwater studies were done by teams from the Eastern Mediterranean University, under the supervision of Hakan Öniz. During the studies, the probable ruins of a lighthouse structure were found on Lake Küçükçekmece. This structure appears to have been constructed in two phases. Other ruins were also found, including a castle/ port structure on the peninsula and two ruins on the lake’s coast from the Hellenistic and Post-Roman/Byzantium times. Underwater Studies For defining underwater studies, four different methods are applied. The first involved the visible mapping of the blocks that form on the on the shore; the second with snorkel; the third by side-scan sonar vessel. (The results of these studies are outlined below); the fourth method involved satellite photography and these studies are ongoing Lake Kuçukçekmece – The Peninsula (Map 1) In 2007, during the surface research, it was realized that a 40-50m length of wall surrounded the tip of the peninsula and there were also stone rows from its tip into sea. The first underwater investigation was done on this wall. It was recorded that there was a 1.35m wide (average), 95m long wall form on the peninsula’s northeast limit and a 200m length of wall form on the peninsula’s northwest limit (Fig. 1). The form is partially in the water and under the earth. All the stone blocks belonging to this wall form were drawn onto the plan.

These two walls are connected to a structure (tower?) on the point of the peninsula. An investigation has not yet been done into the depth of the wall structure that is partially in the water. The ruins from the southeast side of the walls continue under the earth towards the southwest. Geophysical research done on the land by the team from Bristol University shows that these two walls are connected to each other from the peninsular tip’s left, to the southwest and southeast (Fig. 2), indicating that the revealed structure is probably a defence wall. There are filling debris material among the stone blocks used in the construction of the above walling. Even though these have not yet been dated, it is believed that these materials are from Hellenistic, Pre-Roman, or Byzantium times. This area was also developed in Ottoman times. Wall forms inside the walls belonging to Ottoman structures, and the pool structure on the peninsula, are partially standing. There are two structural pieces close to each other in the water on the northwest side of the wall form, and a column piece on the land. Among these finds, in the water and on land, there is another wall form (0.55m wide) parallel to the main wall. On the northeast side of the wall form some architrave fragments have been used as filling material. The form of the structure where the northeast and northwest walls on the tip of the peninsula are connected could not be determined properly. The ruins belonging to this structure, similar to a tower form, continue under the water. This structure is just opposite the lake’s sea entry. Almost all the shores of the lake could be seen easily from a tower placed here, and, consequently, from this most dominant point on the lake, it would be possible to observe all arrivals and departures. At the same time the peninsula acts as a natural breakwater feature. The lake becomes rough according to the strength of the dominant winds around Istanbul, i.e. the northeast and southwest winds. Therefore, the west side of the peninsula especially is a safe anchoring place for ships. Today the average depth of the water here is 4m. Because of the alluvial material carried by local streams we cannot be certain yet of the depth of water in the times the port was used. However it is possible that the trading ships of that time could have come closer to wooden quays that might have been built here.

  Under the guidance of Kocaeli University, Faculty of Science and Literature, Department of Archaeology, Ass. Prof. Dr. Sengul Aydıngun, with the permission of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 1

179

SOMA 2009 The Northeast and Northwest Coasts of Lake Kuçukçekmece In the studies conducted on these coasts, many ruins were encountered. The Turkish Atomic Energy Institution has an installation on the coast line, far away from urban building development. Finds so far in this area have included five small, stone quays, many wall forms, ceramic and marble fragments (including a marble stele). Two of the five stone quays have connections to some kind of wharf. Some wall parts are underwater. The forms continue as walls, without any connection with each other, for approximately 2500m, almost continuously. The quays are large enough (5-8m long by 2-3m wide) for small ships to approach them (Fig. 3). The present forms are reminiscent of coastal villas belonging to the elites in Rome and Byzantine times. The north side of the peninsula also revealed valuable evidence, including five small, stone quays, many wall forms, and ceramic and marble fragments. The wall forms continue without any connection to each other, and partially in water, along approximately 3km of the shoreline, almost continuously. As on the opposite coast, these forms indicate Roman and Byzantine villas. An unguanterium from, with seal/ monogram, is dated to 5th-6th centuries B.C. (Fig. 4). A preliminary study by Serkan Doldur and the Istanbul Museum identified the monogram as H∏APXOY (EPARKOU). It is thought that the name is either of a man or institution. A similar name is known in the literature, but the monogram is different. Lighthouse (?) Approximately 250m from the peninsula two stone blocks can be in the shallows of the lake. Investigations around these blocks revealed structural ruins, wall forms, marble flooring pieces, and ceramic debris (including tiles). Drawings indicate two different structural foundations (Fig. 5).

At this point on the lake there are hazardous conditions for shipping resulting from shallow areas, and this would have applied in earlier times. In order to warn of this risk, and to indicate the location of the port, lighthouses could have been built here at two different times. The mortar material taken from the structural ruins here (built of huge stone blocks) and the mortar samples taken from Byzantium’s outer city walls at Sazlidere, have been compared and it is understood that they used similar materials in the same way. The main function of the structure and its dimensions cannot be understood fully without further excavations and research. The Area in Byzantine Times According to the historian Procopius, the wealthy of Constantinople spent almost all the year in their large estates on the coastlines outside the city. Various other sources record that emperors, senators and nobles built palaces and large estates outside of city. It is also known that after AD 330 (Constantinian times), nobles built villas on the Bosporus coast: Kucukcekmece, the closest freshwater lake, also offered a sea connection, recreational opportunities, and a holiday spot. The Golden Gate (Port Aurea) on the Zeytinburnu side of Constantinople connected to the region on the coast of Lake Küçükçekmece via the Via Egnetia. However, again according to Procopius, this road was a marshy way until Justinian I (AD 557). Later, it was rebuilt using huge stones. The lake not only offers recreational possibilities. Because of its closeness to Istanbul, its connection with the sea, having a safe port for many ships in all winds, it must have been very important for Byzantium. Studies of the area in Hellenistic, Rome and Byzantine times, both military and/or commercial, and others, continue. The excavations will further reveal their functions, dates and other details. Satellite imagery will reveal that there are other coastal areas to explore, on land and underwater.

Map 1

180

Sengul Aydingun and Hakan Oniz: Archaeological Investigations on Istanbul’s Lake Kucukcekmece and River Basin

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5 181

182

ITA (Istanbul Prehistoric Survey) Researches in 2008 Sengul Aydingun and Emre Guldogan Department of Archaeology, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey Department of Archaeology, Istanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey The ‘Istanbul Prehistoric Survey’ (ITA) unit’s archaeological studies at Istanbul, with an international science team, has revealed evidence of prehistoric times. The archaeological importance of Yarımburgaz Cave in prehistoric times is known. In 2007, some clues were found of a PPNB Neolithic settlement on the Avcılar Firuzkoy coast of Lake Kucukcekmece (see the previous contribution in this volume). Well-arranged stone rows on the peninsula’s edge, and reaching into the lake, singled out this area for studies in 2008. The team also started new researches at the Selimpasa Mound, Central Silivri, Alipaşa, Küçük Sinekli, Büyük Sinekli, Danamandıra, Sayalar, Fenerköy and Çilingoz. This season revealed new data, especially near the Lake Küçükçekmece area. We found chipped stones, ground stones, pottery samples and regular stone groups near Lake Küçükçekmece’s coast. We believe that these areas are very important for Istanbul’s cultural history. Further excavations in these areas will take place in future seasons.  At the time the Marmara Sea was a closed river basin, the area near Istanbul where Lake Kuçukcekmece occurs, included deep river valleys. When the last period of glaciation ended sea level increased and the sea water that separates Istanbul and the Canakkale Bosporus filled the Marmara basin to a depth of between 90-120m. As a consequence of this sea influx the old valley edges were choked and a ‘ria’ system appeared (Map 1).  The south side of Lake Kucukcekmece is on the Avcilar boundaries. The investigations done here provided very interesting information, especially about the prehistory of Istanbul. At a point 100m up from where the River Eskinoz and the lake are connected at Avcilar Firuzkoy, local farmers dug two wells and uncovered ceramic finds that have never been seen before at Kucukcekmece. These included hand-thrown items made of a black-mud paste and crudely-fired ware (Fig. 1). Some beige-coloured ceramic pieces come from a cultural layer at a sea level between -4 and -3.50m.     Well 2, which was opened about 80m north of Well 1, is wider and deeper and presents a clearer picture (Fig. 2). Well 2 has at its lowest level (2-2.25m) a coarse sand, thin pebble, fossiliferous horizontal layer, grey and yellow. The level above is 0.5-0.6m thick, grey sandy clay and stones. The grey in this level is indicative of marshy conditions. The base of this level contains a zone of Ostrea shells that reaches 0.2m (Fig. 3). This zone is sometimes inconstant and lens-shaped. Among the grey level on the Ostrea zone, there are much smaller shells. Probably these clays were used for the ceramics. The best examples are the hand-

thrown, black-grey, lightly fired, primitive ceramic pieces that are thought to have come from this level. The highest level is made up of about 0.1-0.25m-thick vegetable soil. At its base it meets yellow clay levels. In these, there are cultural layers. According to the investigations done by geologists Şükrü Ersoy and Timur Ustaomer in both of the wells where the ceramics were found, just above the lowest water level (-2.20m), the existence of Ostreas (sea mussels) shows the formation of the sea. Our observations show that the ceramics come from the muddy sand additive area just above the Ostreas. Much higher there is a layer full of pebbles from stream sediments. Pebbles are generally silica gels occurring from circular pebbles, such as silex, agate and chalcedony. There are also circular pebbles formed of volcanic lava. Some of these pebbles are milky quartz pebbles. According to these conclusions, this point equates to the parts of the old riverbed terrace. It is 15-20m higher than the present river base. In this area, it is understood that at one time the sea filled the valley then drew back, so the area was under the influence of the stream. The flint tools and naviform seeds on the lake’s peninsula, and the soil thrown out from these openings (Fig. 4), are expressed as the first encountered foreign materials in the area by Mehmet Ozdogan and are dated as PPN B Pre-Pots and Pans B.   As a conclusion of the various scientific data from the Kucukçekmece river basin, it is understood that in this area there was probably a village in prehistoric times. As a result of GPR, the sloping area created by the filling of Lake Kucukçekmece at Avcılar-Firuzkoy by the River Eskinoz gives an appearance of a former bay. This small bay might have been filled with landslides. As mentioned above, the two wells dug in this area have indicated a cultural level about 0.50m deep in all of the profiles. In the measurement area (300x100m), this 300x70m-size cultural layer can be seen (Figs. 5, 6). When the defined layers are compared, by considering the variations in depth, the probable areas where ancient settlement ruins might occur become more evident. As a result of all the measurements, the layer which is defined as being of clays and organic content can be defined as an occupation layer. By estimating that there were wooden and vegetable structural features used here since Neolithic times, it is possible that structures existed where the thicknesses occur. The location of the area at that time, the water and productive soil, all point to suitable conditions for agriculture – as remains the case today. When the area where the ceramics and tools come from is examined from a geographical perspective, it can be understood that the area consisted of the small bay connected to the river and lake, providing a very favourable

183

SOMA 2009 human environment. The opposite side of the river offers a peninsula that formed later. On the south of this peninsula many meat cleavers, weights and stone tools were found, which were very similar to the lithic industries of Yarımburgaz’s Palaeolithic times. This situation, therefore, makes us think that the people living in Yarımburgaz might have hunted around the Kuçukçekmece area. It is possible that on the peninsula, which is 6km south of the cave near Firuzkoy, the Palaeolithic inhabitants prepared the meat from the animals they hunted. Taking all the evidence into account, and with more researches planned, we think that we will be able to ascertain whether the above area is a Palaeolithic workshop or not. This location has also revealed naviform seeds (dated as PPNB). These seeds are very important because they are found here for the first time in European geography.    Bibliography Abdullah Bey 1869. ‘Die Umgebung des See’s Kütschücktschekmetche in Rumelien’, Verhanrlungen der k.k Geologischen Reichsanstalt 12, 263-265.  Arıç, C. 1955. Haliç ve Küçükçekmece Gölü bölgesinin Jeolojisi: İTÜ Maden Fak. (Doktora Tezi).  Arsebük, G. 1993. ‘Yarımburgaz, a Lower Paleolithic Cave Site near İstanbul’, in M. Frangipane et al. (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mezopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, 23-36. Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’ Antichita Universita di Roma, Roma.  Arsebük, G. 1996. ‘The Cave of Yarımburgaz (The Oldest Stratified Site Yet Known in Turkey)’, in U. Magen and M. Rashad (eds.), Vom Halys zum Euphrat: 1-13. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.  Arsebük, G. 1998. Yarımburgaz Mağarası Pleistosen Arkeolojisi ile İlgili Son Çalışmalara 1997, Gözüyle Özet Bir Bakış – Pleistocene Archaeology at the Cave of Yarımburgaz”, TÜBA-AR 1, 9-25.  Arsebük, G. 2004. ‘The Cave of Yarımburgaz: A Brief Reassessment’, in Proceedings of International Symposium on Earth System Sciences 2004, İstanbulTurkey, 165-167. Kelebe, İstanbul. Arsebük, G., F.C. Howell and M. Özbaşaran 1988. Yarımburgaz 1988. Yıllık Rapor, İstanbul. Arsebük,G., F.C. Howell and M. Özbaşaran 1990. Yarımburgaz 1989. Yıllık Rapor, İstanbul. Arsebük, G. and  M. Özbaşaran 1990. ‘Yarımburgaz Mağarası’, Rehber Dünyası 2, 11-17.  Arsebük, G. and  M. Özbaşaran 1992. ‘Yarımburgaz’da Pleistosen Arkeolojisi’, in M. Aktar (ed.), l. Speleoloji Sempozyumu, 56-59, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Matbaası, İstanbul. Arsebük, G. and  M. Özbaşaran 1999. ‘Pleistocene Archaeology at the Cave of Yarımburgaz in Eastern Thrace/Turkey: Preliminary Results’, in G.N. Bailey et al. (eds.), The Paleolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, 59-72, Nottingham. 

Bousquet, R. 1901. ‘Les Grottes de Yarem-Bourgaz’, Echos d’Orient 4, 295-302.  Cantay, T. 2003. ‘Sophrone Rabois-Bousquet (18641911) Prehistorya’nın İçinde Doğmak ve Yaşamak’, in M. Özbaşaran, O. Tanındı and A. Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük İçin Armağan Yazılar, 55-56. Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.  Erol, O. and Nuttal, C.P. 1973. Çanakkale bazı denizel Kuvaterner depoları: Coğrafya Araş. Derg., 5,6, 27-91.  Erol, O. and İnal, A. 1980. Çanakkale Yöresi Karacaviran köyü çevresindeki Kuvaterner depoları ve denizel fosilleri: Jeomorfoloji Derg., 9, 1-35.  Eyice, S. 1978. ‘Tarihte Küçükçekmece’, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 6/7, 57-120.  Farrand, W.R. and J.P. McMahon 1997. ‘History of the Sedimentary Infilling of Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey’, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 12.6, 537565. Hochstetter, F.V. 1870. ‘Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869’, Mittheilungen der k.k. Geographische Gesellschaft 5, 193-212.  Kansu, Ş.A. 1963. ‘Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar’, Belleten 28.108, 657-705.  Kuhn, S.L. 2003. ‘Flexibility and Variation in the Lower Paleolithic: A. View from Yarımburgaz Cave’, in M. Özbaşaran, O. Tanındı and A. Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük İçin Armağan Yazılar, 149-157. Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.  Kuhn, S.L., G. Arsebük and F.C. Howell 1996. ‘Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblage from Yarımburgaz Cave,Turkey’, Paleorient 22.1, 31-49.  Lichardus, J. and M. Itten 1990. ‘Der Komplex mit schwarzbraun und graupolierter Keramik und der beginn des Mittelneolitikums in Südosteuropa’, Starinar XL/XLI, 43-49.  Muller, W. 1998. ‘Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya Istanbul Limanı’, 8-34. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Istanbul.  Özbaşaran, M. 1995. ‘The Historical Background of Researches at the Caves of Yarımburgaz’, Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, 27-39. Grapis Yayınları, İstanbul.  Özdoğan, M. 1985. ‘The Late Chalcolithic of Yarımburgaz Cave’, in A. Palmieri and R.Peroni (eds.), Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, 177189. Universita di Roma, Roma.  Özdoğan, M. 1986. ‘Trakya Bölgesinde Yapılan Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları’, IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi I, 29-37.  Özdoğan, M. 1990. ‘Yarımburgaz Mağarası’, X.Türk Tarih Kongresi I, 373-388.  Özdoğan, M. 1992. ‘Tarih Öncesi Dönemde İstanbul’, in Semavi Eyice Armağanı, İstanbul Yazıları, 39-45 Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, İstanbul.  Özdoğan, M. 1996. ‘Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya: Araştırma Projesinin 16. Yılında Genel Bir Değerlendirme’, Anadolu Araştırmaları XIV, 329-360.

184

Sengul Aydingun and Emre Guldogan: ITA (Istanbul Prehistoric Survey) Researches in 2008 World (International Symposium the Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B.C., Belgrade, Smederevska Palanka, October 1988), 175-181. Serbian Academy of Philosophy-Serbian Academy of sciences and Arts Symposia, Volume LI, Belgrad.  Taner, G. 1983. Hamzaköy Formasyonu’nun Çavda (Baküniyen) Bivalvleri, Gelibolu. Tunçer, M. 2005.  ‘Doğal Çevre Koruma Öncelikli Bir Eylem Alanı:  İstanbul Küçükçekmece Gölü’. (1), Arkitera. Tsoukala, E. 2003. ‘Middle Pleistocene Ursid Remains from Yarımburgaz Cave’, in M. Özbaşaran, O. Tanındı and A. Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük İçin Armağan Yazılar, 267-298. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.

 

Özdoğan, M. 2003. ‘Paleolitik  Çağ, İstanbul ve Yarımburgaz Mağarası-16 Yıl Sonra Yarımburgaz’ın Düşündürdükleri’, in M. Özbaşaran, O. Tanındı and A. Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük İçin Armağan Yazılar, 179-183. Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.  Özdoğan, M. and  A. Koyunlu 1986. ‘Yarımburgaz Mağarası, 1986 Yılı Çalışmaları’, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 32/33, 4-17.   Özdoğan, M., Y. Miyake and N. Dede 1991. ‘An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace’, Anatolica XVII, 59-121.  Sakınç, M. and Yaltırak, C. 1997. Güney Trakya Sahillerinin Denizel Pleyistosen Çökelleri ve Plaeocografyası. MTA Dergisi 119, 43-62. Seferiades, M. 1990. ‘Vinça et  l’Archeologic Grecque’, in D. Srejoviç and N. Tasiç (eds.),  Vinça and Its

Figure 1

Map 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

185

SOMA 2009

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

186

Cognitive Evolution and the Concept of Environmental Hygiene in Anatolia in Ancient Times: From Hittite to Roman Sükran Sevimli Deontology and History of Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Van, Turkey The aim of this study is to explain the concept of environmental hygiene in Anatolia in the ancient times. The study is based on archaeological findings. Our study focuses on the cognitive capacities within a 2000-year period, and thus it does not make any claims regarding the biological evolution of the human brain. According to cognitive theory, Anatolian geography provides ideal features for research. The concept of environmental hygiene is an early human development which can be identified in prehistory.

their authentic cultures; (3) Anatolians introduced their knowledge to the societies they lived, or communicated with; (4) The assimilated knowledge was not only used by themselves, but also defined the common physical and spiritual/ritual values of all of the three continents; (5) Anatolia offers intercultural connection and communication, enabling the region to develop common applications and concepts from all three continents.

Cognitive evolution in Anatolia

Social cognitive theory defines human behaviour as a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal interaction of personal factors, behaviour, and the environment. Social cognitive theory has four conditions: (1) Attention; (2) Retention; (3) Motor reproduction; and (4) Motivation and Opportunity (Bandura, 1977).

This study1 explores the cognitive evaluation of the concept of environmental hygiene with the evidence collected from archaeological excavations in Anatolia, from the periods of the Hittites, the early Greek/Ionian colonies, and the Romans. Archaeological findings also contain evidence about the cognitive evolution of humanity. According to time and place, as referred to in Wynn’s study (2002), archaeology enables us to get information about the past, understand our ancestors, and also to understand today and the future.2 Archaeological documents found in Anatolia, show the existence of an Old Stone Age between 600000-10000 BC, a Middle Stone Age between 10000-8000 BC, and a New Stone Age between 8000-5500 BC (Akurgal, 2000). From earliest times, the varied Anatolian societies had an important role in the development of environmental hygiene and also in the transformation of this knowledge to other societies. This situation occurs because of the geologic importance of Anatolia and its advantages for the local populations. Anatolia is provides not only an ideal environment for habitation, but also a natural corridor between the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe. A number of factors result from this: (1) Anatolian societies introduced their authentic culture, which offers reciprocal interaction of societal factors; (2) Anatolians were able to understand other cultures in addition to their own and enhanced   I thank Prof. Tuncay Özgünen for the initial invitation to prepare this article. My study on hygiene was originally developed for a doctorate thesis on the ‘Concept of Hygiene and Its Evolution in Anatolian Civilizations (2005)’. In this context I would also like to thank Prof. İlter Uzel and Dr. Selim Kadioglu. 2   ‘Assuming that human evolution is relevant to understanding the human condition, an intellectual position that is at the core of biological approaches to behavior, if not yet psychology, then archaeology can supply two important bodies of evidence: 1) actual timing of developments, and 2) the evolutionary context of these developments.’ (Wynn, 2002: 1) 1

Cognitive approach

This approach is also applicable for societies. Each successive stage of cognitive evolution represents an increase in the complexity of organization, and, thereby, an increase in societal intelligence, manifesting in: (1) Active communication; (2) reciprocal interaction between external and internal factors; (3) criteria specified as authentic knowledge; (4) various practices made for explicit purposes; (5) shared perceptions, fears, expectations and worldviews; (6) the same or similar allocation within the unit and environment. Cognitive evolution Cognitive evolution includes different levels of human reality and these different realities develop according to indirect information about nature and/or humans, setting the concept and its details, formulating it by different disciplines, and by internalizing it changing human behavioural patterns (Wynn 2000; Sevimli 2005). Merlin Donald (1993) explains that ‘Cultures are made up of minds; they are by definition the products of individual minds in interaction, and therefore the type of culture that any given species.’ In an earlier work, the same author writes ‘Hominid cultural stages may be classified by applying strict cognitive criteria to existing chronological data. When several of these factors converge during a given time period, we have reason to propose a major cognitive-cultural transition during that period. There are four proposed stages; episotic, mimetic, mythic and theoretic.’ (Donald 1998) Our study includes mythic and theoretic findings of antique society.

187

SOMA 2009 The concept of hygiene The application of hygiene depends on certain physiological necessities, and varies according to the type of data collection. Societies would collectively agree on the concept of hygiene depending on physical and spiritual values, and endeavour to make other societies conform. These concepts provide information about the evaluation and also the cognitive evaluation of societies. Physical hygiene in broad terms The first stage of physical hygiene is individual hygiene, the second is environmental hygiene and the third represents medical hygiene. The concept and applications of individual hygiene started in prehistory. In this study, the beginning of environmental cleanliness and the developments of this concept are observed. Environmental cleanliness is the process which involves the cleaning of living areas, prevents the immediate environment from becoming soiled, and makes the environment appropriate for inhabitation. To these ends people try to protect the environment and create specific tools and features, including architectural ones. Societies developed not only to care about the technologies of cleanliness but also created ethical codes and laws to enforce it. The concept of hygiene in Anatolia in four stages Human knowledge and culture has some stages which can be classified by applying strict cognitive criteria to existing chronological findings. As mentioned above, Donald explains that hominid cognitive cultural stages include episodic, mimetic, mythic and theoretic (Donald 1998). This paper will look only at some of the outstanding mythic and theoretic stages in this period and our study begins with findings illustrating the concept of hygiene and the early literature on the subject. Stage 1: Archaeological findings from prehistory show that people used applications only in relation to individual hygiene. The absence of writing prevents interpretation in depth. Stage 2: This period begins with the development of writing and permits an understanding of their knowledge and analysis of thought processes. Formal inscriptions reflect a time period between prehistory and the 6th century BC; archaeological findings show that people make mystical interpretations and used mythology to gain a perspective on themselves and nature, by providing reasons and answers. Individual deities required specific methods of cleansing, and the concept of hygiene was also affected and formulated by belief. Organization of society in this period was based on regional deities and the localized laws of the states and/or societies. It falls to a code found in Hittite law to make us think that they started caring about the physical environment.

Stage 3: After the 6th century BC, individuals began to consider changes in people and to their environment. Philosophers observed humans and nature, and separated the spiritual and physical values of humanity. As a result of this separation it is thought that the needs of humans fell into two categories. At this period philosophers began to not automatically accept that circumstances depended on their deities exclusively, but that there were rational explanations to certain things; ordinary people could begin to come to terms with abstract concepts, and, in relation to hygiene, applications began to evolve – individual, environmental, and medical. In this period Ionian colonies were living together as a collective government; it was an organization providing both dependency and independency. Stage 4: The details and applications of environmental hygiene, begun as above in Stage 3, continued to develop in this period but were under a central authority. Related issues are settled and common buildings used; laws too are codified and institutions established. We are able to say that a new opinion was born: laws replaced philosophy. From this perspective we are able to define it as a different era. The Roman Empire, which occupied Anatolia during this period, had its own specific hygiene policies. Materials and methodology The materials to be used in the study involve researches conducted into the investigation of the social, cognitive and cultural lives of the Hittite, Greek and Roman civilizations in Anatolia. In the context of environmental hygiene the tools they used, buildings, laws, and scripts were evaluated as part of the main topic of study. Archaeological findings First stage of environmental hygiene in Anatolia: The Hittite Empire (1650-1250 BC) Archaeologists and historians suggest that Hittites immigrated to Anatolia in 2000 BC, but it is not clear where they came from. Hittites settled an empire in central Anatolia between 1650-1250 BC. The populations combined their authentic knowledge with that of the indigenous Hurri, Luwi, Pala and Hatti peoples from the region. Especially they incorporated many of the rituals used by the Hurri. The Hittites also communicated with Assur, Sumer, Babil and Egyptian populations, who also occupied areas of Anatolia at the same time as the Hittites (Goetze 1975; Bryce, 2000). Concept of hygiene for the Hittites The concept of hygiene for the Hittites incorporated purification according to their spiritual values. Hittites thought that purification (hygiene) was the main consideration to appease and approach their deities. They thought that uncleanliness caused diseases and disasters of all kinds, and used purification to protect themselves from theirs gods’ wrath (Mellart 1974; Alp 1983; Süel 1985;

188

Sükran Sevimli: Cognitive Evolution and the Concept of Environmental Hygiene in Anatolia in Ancient Times Karasu 1985; Hoffner 1991; Mcmahon 1992; Popko 1994; Gurney 1997; Ünal 1998; Özenir 2001). Environmental Hittite hygiene and their spiritual values: archaeological evidence Hittite cities and temples were settled near water springs. Hittites built storage systems for water (cisterns, pools, spring rooms, water ditches and dams), additionally they built water distribution systems for their houses from springs; they faced lack of water in some periods and used water for several purposes. The main process in Hittite rituals was individual purification. They considered water and related resources as holy and built their water feature near temples. Their officials used the ‘water tank with fountain’ for cleansing before temple tituals (Garstang 1929; Mellart 1974; Kınal 1987; Balcıoğlu 1990; Taracha 1990; Karasu 1992; Macqueen 2001; Özenir 2001; Ünal 2003). Hittite laws on cleanliness There are many Hittite codes preventing conflict between people, institutions and organizations. But they had a further code relating to purification that is not found in the corresponding laws of Ur-DNammu, Ešnunna, Lıpıt–Ištar, Ana İttišu, Middle Assur, Hammurabi (Tosun and Yalvaç 1989). 66 Before, if a person pollutes a pot or a pond, then gives (6) sekel (shekel) silver 67 giving (1) sekel silver: the person who pollutes has to give three sekel silver 68 for the palace (2) three sekel silver was being taken; king refused the share of palace 69 so, again three sekel silver has to be given, by doing this they will be protecting their house from crime (Imparati, 1992). Second stage of environmental hygiene in Anatolia: Early Greek/Ionian colonies (c. 1000-5th c BC) Geo-political and environmental factors were the primary ones that induced the early inhabitants of Hellas to migrate and form colonies in Anatolia around 1000 BC (Bonnard 2004; McEvedy 2004; Gürsu 1976; Aktüre 2003) Ionian colonies and new insights into environmental hygiene Individuals in these new Ionian colonies had time to try to redefine nature, life and the human condition generally by observing Egypt and Mesopotamia. The natural philosophers among them included great thinkers such as Thales, Anaksimandros, Anaksimenes, Pythagoras, Xsenophes, Melissus, Herakleitos, Parmenides, Zenon, Empedokles, Anaksagoras, Apollonios Tyana, Leukippos

and Demokritos (Laertios 2003).3 These men all broadly supported some form of relationship between nature, the environment, and humans and their diseases (SherwinWhite 1978). Hippocrates – ‘Air, Water and Place’ Hippocrates is considered the father of medicine. In a passage in the Corpus Hippocraticum called ‘Air, Water and Place’, Hippocrates compares the conditions of Asia and Europe in terms of the individual and environmental cleanliness, reporting that Asian factors are superior and warning of the effects of sun and wind on health in cities, classifications of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ water, and relationships between climate and disease. (3) Hippocrates also studied the causes of diseases and suggested that pollution of water and soil would cause some diseases (Litré 1961; Vermule 1974). Other physicians from the region include Heraclitos, who considered that air, inhaled when breathing, was a primary factor in health, and Empedokles, who stressed the need to drain marshes to prevent malaria and to fumigate houses. Leucippus and Democritos inferred the atom and the role of micro-organisms in disease (Fagan 2002; Seneca 1999; Laertios 2003; Scarborough 1976). Herodotus reported that the Ionian cities were efficient, healthy and clean.4 But in some of the cities people had health problems arising from pollution. Ionian philosophers were aware that all three classifications of hygiene were basic needs for the populations. Accordingly, roads, wells and cisterns are features of the major cities. Third stage of environmental hygiene in Anatolia: Roman Empire (30BC-AD330) Roman societies migrated to Anatolia for economic, military, political and cultural reasons. In the beginning they were encouraged by Attalos III, king of Pergamon. By this time the Roman Empire already had sovereignty in Europe, Asia and Africa (Magie 1948). This huge spread of occupation effectively introduced the authentic features of Rome, gave knowledge of different cultures, and distributed the synthesis to all three continents.

  It is unnecessary here to go into the studies of all these great thinkers, but among them Thales considered water the main ingredient of life (Laertios 2003). Anaksimandros (Laertios 2003; Kranz 1984) mentions the importance of time. Herakletios held that elements attract each other and that dialectic is important. Anaksimenes studied air. Xenophanes theorized that water evaporates from the sea and becomes rain and forms rivers; Leukippus and Democritos suggested that life was based on atoms. Empedokles explored the relationship between nature and disease. Aristotle classified and observed the ideas of natural philosophers and produced his own theories them (Laertios 2003; Kranzi 1984; Saraç 2002). 4   ‘Ions, who gathered in Panionion, settled their cities at the best place known in the world. The first city at the south is Miletos, following this city Myus and Priene come. The cities at the north and south cannot be as good as Ion cities. Also west and east cannot be as good as them, some of them are hot and dry, others are cold and wet.’ (Herodotos 1991) 3

189

SOMA 2009 Several archaeological traces found in Anatolia are important because they inform us about the concepts of environmental hygiene and its applications.

To counter this they decided to copy the instincts of birds and sea creatures and select similar, healthy, habitats.

The concept of hygiene for Roman society was a synthesis of spiritual and rational thought combined with authentic evidence from other Anatolian societies. A sophisticated level of civic and personal hygiene (and laws relating to it) developed, which included architectural structures, aqueducts, cisterns, fountains, latrines and sewer systems (Garison 1929; Magie 1948; Yegül 1992; Vitrivius 1998; Landels 2000).

The desirable features included: (1) the site had to be healthy – away from marsh, fog and frost; (2) neither too hot, nor too cold; (3) the morning sun has to rise upon the city; (4) the winds must not disturb the inhabitants; (5) there must be good water and the provision of sewers and latrines; (6) hot and cold public baths must be made available (Landels 2000; Dinç 2003). These measures were successful to a degree in preventing malaria and other epidemic diseases and led in turn to increased local efficiency in agriculture and other enterprises with these preventions, and also minimized the losses in economics and agriculture (Yegül 1995; Hodgkinson 1985).

Environmental hygiene during the Roman Empire

Water and health

During the Roman period, hygiene was a most important subject and it was considered and discussed by physicians, philosophers, politicians, merchants, architects, writers and poets. From this perspective, thinkers such as Vitrivius, who was a soldier-architect, Cicero who was a politician, the physicians Galen, Soranus, and Celsus, and the philosopher Seneca studied the principles of hygiene closely (Jackson 1999). With the support of the central authorities, architectural structures were built to match the technical advancements of the day and a series of social codes and organizations appeared (Lanciani 1898).

Roman scholars understood the relationship between clean water and health. The architect Vitrivius drew distinctions between spring and rain water, considering the former to be cleaner (Vitrivius 1988). Pliny the Elder wrote that ‘rain water becomes polluted by evaporation from the soil and that is why spring water is the cleanest; well water is cleaner than the soil and we are able to clean the dirty water.’ (Pliny 1985). In addition he also supported the ideas of Neron and mentioned that water would be cleansed through boiling. At this period rain water was not counted as primary source for drinking because of the various opinions on it.

‘Rational’ hygiene during the Roman period in Anatolia

Applications of Roman hygiene features in Anatolia included: (1) the establishment of cities in healthy environments with good water supply; (2) purification systems have to be used for drinking and other water supply. Doctors did not know the specific diseases related to unclean water, but they were aware that ill health could be associated with it; (3) waste disposal; (4) bathing establishments; (5) latrines of sufficient size to accommodate many people; (6) laws to restrict the pollution of soil and living areas (Scarbrough 1976; Columella 1979; Cato 1979). By the end of the Anatolian Roman period, the belief system had largely altered to monotheism and aspects of individual, environmental and medical hygiene evolved to harmonize with the spiritual values. Hygiene and town planning in Anatolia in Roman times Some earlier Roman populations in Italy experienced living in bad conditions near bogs and learned the importance of healthy living and hygiene. Writers such as L. Iunıus Moderatus Columella in his De Re Rustıca Lıber Prımus, Vitrivius in his De Architectura and Strabo in his Geographica, looked at earlier scholars such as Democritos and Leukippus, and Plato in his Laws, and all noted the importance of environmental hygiene and location of towns and cities (Kranz 1984; Laertios 2003). If the physical environment is polluted then visible and invisible organisms, and polluted air, will enter noses, eyes and ears, and bring with them disease (Scarborough 1976).

Water transportation and hygiene During the Roman period different techniques were used for the transportation of water. Covered aqueducts, rockcarved tunnels, and clay pipe systems were developed and widely used and functionaries employed to check quality and operational effectiveness (İzmirligil 1979; Anabolu 2001). A problem with aqueducts, even though the water channels (sometimes in as many as three storeys or levels) were closed with capping stones, was that they were suscepible to pollution or sabotage by enemies (Landels 2000; Hodge 1992). Vitrivius was clear that water transportation systems should be closed to protect the water and that sunlight should not get to it; in these sealed systems there should also be ventilation points every 240 feet. Clay5 or lead pipes were used, although the possibility of lead poisoning was even then discussed (Scarborough 1976; Vitrivius 1998; Landels 2000; Handbook of Ancient Water Techonology 2000; Umar 1985). Remains of some of these featuires may be seen to this day at many sites, including Aspendos, Klikya Andriake, Balbura, Idebessus, Myra, Oenoanda, Patara, Pynda/Cynda, Rhodiapolis, Xanthus and Valens (Farrington 1995; Dinç 2003; Prokopios 1994).

  Pliny favoured clay pipes: ‘The easiest way to transport spring water is to use clay pipes connected to each other or pipes covered with lime mixed with oil, 2 fingers in diameter.’ (Pliny 1980) 5

190

Sükran Sevimli: Cognitive Evolution and the Concept of Environmental Hygiene in Anatolia in Ancient Times Water collection and hygiene

Other Roman sources on health and hygiene

Vitrivius also advised that water could be stored in cisterns and pools, and dammed springs and source accordingly. He said that water was softer and cleaner if stored in interconnected cisterns. With these types of cisterns, the water entered in clay pipes and stored in cisterns or pools, each of which was used by different groups of people for different purposes and situations: drinking, bathing, washing, trade, times of emergency, etc. (Vitrivius 1998).

Other Roman writers and thinkers took time to comment on health and hygiene issues. Celsus and Columella praised the Roman standards of public health. They considered the medical care available was of a good level. Cato, however, lamented what he thought was the poor quality of military care and that civilian structures for environmental cleanliness were insufficient. According to him, medicine was not being used properly and that advances were slow, and that the situation was not helped by the continued belief in magic and superstition. Seneca said that the Emperor of Roman cared about individual and environmental hygiene, and praised the latrines, and sewer systems available in the bigger cities (Scarbrough 1976).

Pliny the Elder endorsed the multi-cistern system (Pliny 1980) but Seneca, although agreeing that they were an economical way of managing this precious resource, thought that the arrangements could always be improved and that storms could pollute the stored water. (Seneca, 1999). Palladius Aemilianus, in his work Opus Agriculturae wrote that ‘for healthy and clean water a cistern must be deep and that the plaster coating the cistern is also important.’ (Palladius 1879) Land cleanliness The Romans also realized the importance to a clean and healthy environment of good soil and land. Both M. Terentius Varro and Vitrivius had thoughts on this. Varro, in Rerum Rusticarum (III, I.I.8.9; Penso 1989; Seneca 1999) and Vitrivius in De Architectura stress the need for unpolluted local environment, soil and farmland (Vitrivius, 1998) . Sewerage An efficient sewerage system was crucial to the Romans, who understood its importance in terms of health (Anabolu 2001). Latrines were a later Roman development and the wealthier families often had private toilets in their homes. As with the bath houses, the big city latrines were impressive structures that could accommodate large numbers of users simultaneously, as at Ephesos and Sagalassos (Scerrer 2000; Bingöl 1998; Yegül 1986; 1992; 1995). Legal measures relating to hygiene Codes of laws evolved to give a measure of protection to health and hygiene matters. These included the Lex Metilia, in relation to laundries and laundry workers (Penso 1989); the Lex Julia Municipolis, in relation to the care and cleanliness of roads6 and thoroughfares (Penso 1989; Mitchell 1993). Other measures were codified to establish public sector cleaners and maintenance staff to supervise urban cleanliness, as mentioned in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum of Cicero (Penso 1989; Prioreschi 1991). The sewers were maintained by separate officials called ‘curatores cloacarum’ and ‘redemptor cloacorum’, established during the period of Augustus (Pliny 1980).   Suetinos, in his Vespasianus, called for roads to be stone covered for city cleanliness (Suetonius 1979) . 6

Developments of hygiene were limited, of course, during Roman times. Their scientists knew nothing of the microorganisms existing in the air, water and soil. Varro thought that life has its own rules and hinted at invisible organisms at large in the environment that could enter the human bodies and infect them, He also understood that urban centres must be well sited and clean, and human beings needed sunshine, fresh air, and clean water for their general well being (Scarbrough 1976). Discussion Archaeological findings not only provide information about the times in which people live, but they also provide information about cognitive evaluation (Wynn 2002) and the power of the human brain in defining new concepts and applications. For a cognitive evaluation, Anatolia was seen above in the light of three succeeding civilizations, and the archaeological evidence explored in terms of its relation to environmental hygiene. Finds related to environmental hygiene show that people had needs parallel to their thoughts, and for these needs social and technical developments occurred. The intelligence of human beings changed and developed parallel to their understanding of nature and life. As seen in the three periods investigated above, from earliest times – from superstition to early science – human beings have searched and made use of their environment for advances. By the time rational thinking began people started looking for visible evidence on which to base their advances: in our case health and hygiene. This period is clarified with the thoughts of western-Anatolian philosophers. When we observe the developments of civilizations, we see that there are different types of environmental hygiene. During the Hittite period, because individual and environmental hygiene was linked primarily to their gods and belief system, structures like cisterns, pools and baths were built according to spiritual values. With the arrival of the natural philosophers in the Ionian colonies in the 6th century BC, people defined themselves and nature. Archaeological findings reveal the structures built for these improvements. We see that

191

SOMA 2009 there are variations in the locations of cities and that water supply, latrines and sewers were provided. During Roman times common architectural structures linked to environmental hygiene were built and the importance of public and private health stressed and acted upon with the help of rational thinking. Conclusion Anatolia has an important role in cognitive evaluation because of its natural resources and effective ‘corridor’ between three continents. From our observations it can be clearly seen that Anatolia was a centre for the advancement and application of hygiene development, which is a pattern related to the physiological needs of man; we have viewed this through three sets of archaeological evidence from the times of the Hittites, the Ionian colonies, and the Romans. We have also explored four different and important stages in the development environmental hygiene at Anatolia. 1. Although there are findings showing the applications of hygiene as a concept in prehistory, our understanding is limited by the lack of written evidence. 2. At the very beginning of writing we learn that people used individual hygiene, but very much as part of their belief system. We are able to understand the importance of individual hygiene at this period from the rituals and codes. Lack of scientific understanding held back advances in hygiene but the first steps started in this period. Anatolian Hittite laws and Ur-DNammu, Ešnunna, Lıpıt-Ištar, Ana İttišu, Middle Assur, Hammurabi laws have been searched to understand if the concept of environmental hygiene existed or not. It is seen from the Hittite codes that penalties were applied for water pollution, but this was not the case apparently other societies. This period of early writing was crucial as a precursor to the early steps of rational thinking that occurred in western Anatolia 500 years later. 3. The evidence to be seen during the second stage of written history shows the development of a new phase. In this period a level of cognitive evaluation occurred with the help of the studies of several natural philosophers. Hygiene is defined and applied in terms of rational values. 4. During this stage environmental hygiene is developed with several applications. Roman societies at first ignored the cognitive changes in Anatolia but than adopted them. They used special structures, medical applications, and specific laws for the advance of environmental hygiene. In this period the architecture of environmental hygiene expanded over a wide area under the prolonged care of central authorities. As a result, cognitive evaluation, which is observed here in terms of environmental hygiene, developed with the life choices and skills of men and women. Evidence collected from region to region varies, showing

differences at different time periods. We are able to see that cognitive evaluation first started in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and then Anatolia. From Anatolia it leaped to Europe and America. Cognitive evaluation occurred as a result of shared experience between the continents and today’s thinking, in terms of the present and future, is that cognitive evaluation will no longer depend on geography. Technology will now enable information to flow effortlessly and simultaneously. The sharing of knowledge is global and that is why future cognitive advances will also be universal, both societally and individually.

Bibliography Aktüre, S. 2003. Anadolu’da Demir Çağı Kentleri. İstanbul. Alp, S. 1983. Beitrage zur Erforschung des Hethitischen Tempels, Kultenlagen im Licte Der Keilschrifttexte, Neue Deutungen, 186-187. Ankara. Akurgal, A. 2000. Anadolu Uygarlıkları. 7. Baskı. İstanbul. Anabolu, M. 2001. İstanbul ve Anadolu’daki Roman İmparatorluk Dönemi Mimarlık Yapıtlar. İstanbul. Balcıoğlu, B. 1990. Bir Hitit Bayramı (Ezen hadauri-) Hakkında Bazı izlenimler. Ankara Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 364, Cilt XXXIV, sayı.1-2. Ankara. Bandura, A. 2005. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory http://www. med.usf. Edu / ~kmbrown/ Social Cognitive Theory Overview.htm (2005). Bingöl, O. 1998. Magnesia Ad Maeandrum–Menderes Magnesiası. Ankara. Bonnard, A. 2004. Antik Yunan Uygarlığı. İstanbul. Bryce, T. 2002. Life and Society in The Hittite World, 123, Oxford. Cato, P.M. and Varro, T.M. 1979. On Agriculture (G.P. Goold ed.). The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard. Columella, M.J.L. 1979. On Agriculture (E.H. Warmington ed.). The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard. Dinç, R. 2003. Tralleis. Istanbul. Donald, M. 1993. Human Cognitive Evolution: What We Were, What We Are Becoming. Social Research 60, 143-170.  Donald, M. 1998. Hominid Enculturation And Cognitive Evolution. In C. Renfrew, et al. eds., Cognition and Material Culture: the archaeology of external symbolic storage. Cambridge. Estın C. and Laporte H. 2003. Yunan ve Roman Mitolojisi. 6. Basım. Ankara. Fagan, G.G. 2002. Bathing In The Public In The Roman World. Michigan. Farrington, A. 1995. The Roman Baths of Lycia-An Architectural Study. Ankara. Garrison, F.H. 1929. History of Medicine. (4th Edition). London. Garstang, J. 1929. The Hittite Empire. London.

192

Sükran Sevimli: Cognitive Evolution and the Concept of Environmental Hygiene in Anatolia in Ancient Times Goetze A. 1975. Anatolia From Shuppılulıumash To The Egyptian War of Muwatallish. (The Cambridge Ancient History. History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 B.C., I.E.S. Edwards et al. (eds.), 3rd Edition. Vol. II (2). Cambridge. Gurney, O.R. 1997. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford. Gürsu, S.T. 1976. Tarihte Batı Anadolu, Ege, Ege Adaları. VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı I.Cilt. Ankara. Handbook of Ancient Water Techonology 2000. (Ö. Wikander ed.), Vol. 2. Koninklijke. Herakletios 2003. Kırık Taşlar. (Çev:Alova) İstanbul. Herodotos 1991. Herodot Tarihi. İstanbul. Hoffner, H.A. 1991. Hittite Myths. Society Of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Series (2nd edn.). Chicago. Hodge, A. T. 1992. Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply. London. Hodgkinson, P. 1985. Los Jardines de Catalunga BarcelanoSpain, Taler De Arquitectura. An Encyclopaedia of Modern Architecture (Y. Futugawa ed.). Tokyo. Imparati, F. 1992. Hitit Yasaları. (Ç.E. Özbayoğlu). Ankara. Jackson, R. 1999. Roman İmparatorluğu’nda Doktorlar ve Hastalıklar. İstanbul. Karasu, C. 1995. Some Considerations On Hittite Scribes. Anadolu Arşivleri Sayı: 1. Ankara. Karasu, C. 1992. (h)isuua Bayramı Kolofonları Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler, Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Otten, H, Ertem, H, Akurgal, E, Süel A., 332-335. Ankara. Kınal, F. 1987. Eski Anadolu Tarihi. Kranz, W. 1984. Antik Felsefe. (çev: Suad Y.Baydur). İstanbul. Laertios, D. 2003. Ünlü Filozofların Yaşamları ve Öğretileri. (Çev: C.Şentuna). İstanbul. Lanciani, R. 1898. Ancient Rome in Light of Recent Discoveries. Boston (online edition). Landels, J.G. 2000. Eski Yunan ve Roman’da Mühendislik. 9. Basım. Ankara. Litré, P. É. 1961. Oeuvres Completes D’ Hippocrate. Vol. 2. Amsterdam. İzmirligil Ü. 1979. Side Su Yolları. VIII. Türk Tarih kongresi I.Cilt, 11-15 Ekim, 1976, 467-470. Ankara. Palladius, T. A. 1879. Opus Agriculturae. (B. Lodge, and S.J.H. Heritage eds.). London, Penso, G. 1989. La Medicina Romana. Milan. Pliny 1980. Natural History Volume VIII-Libri XXVIIIXXXII. The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard. Prokopios 1994. İstanbul’da Iustinianus Döneminde Yapılar. İstanbul. Prioreschi P. 1991. A Brief History Of Medicine Medicine. New York. Popko, M. 1994. Hethitische Rituale und Festbeschreibungen. KUB 58, 103. Özenir, A. S. 2001. Studien zu den Boğazköy-texten Alten des IV. Internationalin Kongress für Hethitologie Würzburg 4-8 October 1999. Wiesbaden. Nauman, R. 1998. Eski Anadolu Uygarlığı. Ankara.

Macqueen, J.G. 2001. Hititler ve Hitit Çağında Anadolu. Ankara. Magie, D. 1948. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton. McMahon G. 1992. The Hittite State Cult. Assyriological Studies 25. Chicago. McEvedy, C. 2004. İlkçağ Tarih Atlası. İstanbul. Mellaart, J. 1974. Western Anatolia, Beycesultan and the Hittites, 493-526, Ankara. Mellink, M.J. 1974. Notes on Anatolian Wall Paintings, 537-547. Ankara. Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods İn Asia Minor, Vol I, The Celts and The Impact of Roman Rules. London. Saraç, C. 2002. İyonya Pozitif Bilimi. 2. Baskı. İstanbul. Scarborough, J. 1976. Roman Medicine (2nd edn.) New York. Scerrer, P. 2000. Efes Rehberi. Ege Yayınları ve Avusturya Arkeoloji Enstitüsü. İstanbul. Sherwin-White, S.M.S. 1978. Ancient Cos. Gottingen. Seneca, 1999. Ahlâki Mektuplar Epistulae Morales (Kitap I-XX). (Çev.Türkân Uzel), Ankara. Sevimli, Ş. 2005. Anadolu Uygarlıklarında Temizlik Kavramı ve Uygulamalarının Evrimi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Adana. Suetonius II 1979. (E.T. Page et al. eds.). The Loeb Classical Library. Süel, A. 1985. Hitit Kaynaklarında Tapınak Taracha, P. 1990. ‘Hitit Kral Telafi Ritualleri Hakkinda Bazi Düşünceler- Einige Bemerkungen zu den Ersatzritualen für den hethitischen König’, in Uluslararasi 1. Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri Ankara (1992) 229-233 (234-238). Temmuz. Tosun, M. and Yalvaç K. 1989. Sümer, Babil, Asur Kanunlari Ve Ammi-Şaduqa Fermani. 2. Baskı. Ankara. Umar, B. 1985. Pisidia. İstanbul. Ünal, A. 1983. Hitit Sarayındaki Entrikalar Hakkında Bir Fal Metni (KUB XXII/Bo2011), 343. Ankara. Ünal, A. 1992. Parts of Trees in Hittite According to a Medical Incantation Text (KUB 43.62). Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Otten, H., Ertem, H., Akurgal E., Süel, A., 495-497. Ankara. Ünal, A. 2002. Hititler Devrinde Anadolu. I.Kitap, İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Ünal, A. (1998). Hittite and Hurrian Cuneiform Tablets from Ortaköy (Çorum), Central Turkey With two Excursuses on the ‘Man of the Storm God’ and Full Edition of KBO 23.27. İstanbul. Ünal, A. 2003. Hititler Devrinde Anadolu Kitap 2. İstanbul. Vermule, C. 1974. Dated Monuments of Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Popular Art in Asia Minor: Ionia, Lydia and Phrygia, Mansel’e Armağan I, 119-126. Ankara. Vitrivius 1998. Mimarlık Üzerine On Kitap (Vitrivius The Ten Books on Architecture). İstanbul. Yegül, F. 1986. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis: The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Harvard. Yegül, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. London.

193

SOMA 2009 Yegül, F. 1995. Efes ve Sardis: Antik Çağda Kentleşme ve Anadolu Seçeneği. 1994 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları, Ankara.

194

Windmills of the Bodrum Peninsula Tolga Bozkurt Department of Art History, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Bodrum, with a historical past going back 5000 years, was founded on Halikarnassos, one of the most famous cities in ancient times (Elbe 1972: 13-5). Part of Turkey since the last quarter of the 11th century, the Bodrum peninsula represents a rich historical texture both in terms of its monumental and vernacular architecture (Galanti 1945; Baykara 1992: 247-9). As complementary elements of traditional civil architecture, cisterns and windmills are the most obvious elements of this landscape. Windmills provided the first phase of our research into the traditional civil architecture of the Bodrum peninsula in 2005. Although the number of examples existing today from the 42 windmills listed in the inventory of Bodrum cultural properties is limited, within our research we will try to present 26 windmills, in five groups, by evaluating their material, constructional and design features. We will consider four from the Turgutreis Karabag district, seven each in Peksimet and Ortakent, five at the Yukarı Islamhaneleri site, and three located on the YalıkavakBodrum road1 (Fig. 1). Grinding grain into flour was one of the most important inventions in human history. Over time, parallel with the increase in needs of cereals and production, different grinding techniques were improved and different technologies used in accordance with the local mill types. Here the important factor is the power supply to run the mills. While in some regions strong streams or wind energy can provide this resource, people can use animal or human power where these natural resources do not exist. The use of wind energy requires more advanced technology and, moreover, the production capacity of windmills is lower than water mills. Historical sources about the origin of windmills show that the eastern civilizations were the first to apply the technology. The first windmills of the 10th and 11th centuries in central Asia, China and the Arab Peninsula were used to pump water as well as for grinding grain. In these earliest models, known as ‘horizontal mills’, the ‘propeller’ and millstone are directly linked to each other. Afterward vertical types were developed in European and western civilizations. Propellers in vertical mills are rotated by wind from the front and the energy transferred via rotating mechanism to the millstone, at a ninety-degree differential connection (Medioli et al. 1977: 45-50). The Bodrum windmills, which are linked to the Mediterranean architectural tradition, are tower-shaped, vertical-type constructions. There is no precise information

to shed light on the historical development of the Bodrum windmills. Sadly the reliable 16th-century source Piri Reis does not mention any mill structure on the shores of Gümüşlük and Karabağ (Piri Reis 1973: 206-208), nor, in the 17th century, did Evliya Çelebi comment on them (Evliya Çelebi 1985: 581-2). Therefore, considering similar windmills with inscription panels in western Anatolia and the Aegean islands it can be said that the existing examples were largely made by Greek specialists after the second half of the 19th century as indicated by local people (Medioli et al. 1977: 53). The windmills of Bodrum peninsula are masonry, twostorey buildings within a cylindrical body (Fig. 2). A milling floor, supported with a wooden structure, stands on a ground floor where installation and storage functions can be performed. The roof, covered with wooden or metallic sheets, was shaped simply. When needed, the circular plan of the body enables the main shaft-propeller axle to be directed to the dominant wind in a ring rotation with a cradle, which was designed as a wooden pulley system above the body. Both the plan and the structural details have been resolved in accordance with the function of the building. However, these wooden elements need renewed at specific intervals. This also adversely affects the production costs of windmills with higher maintenance costs. Windmills could grind 20 sacks of wheat, approximately 320kg per hour, when the winds allow. When elapsed time from loading and unloading process and variability of wind conditions are taken into consideration, it can be estimated that an average of 120 sacks, i.e. around two tons of wheat, could be ground in a working day. Not only flour, but also barley, corn and bulgur (boiled and pounded wheat) were processed by windmills. Since flour quickly gets mouldy and wormy, and people need wheat ground monthly, windmills would have been working all year round.2 The grinding mechanisms of the Bodrum windmills mainly consists of propeller, main axle (düver), main drive wheel (çark), differential gear (fener), drive shaft (ığ), leverbrake system and millstone (Figs. 3-7). The masts (seren) fixed into the main axle’s head, sitting on the tambour of a cylindrical body in specific ranges and angles, constitute the framework of the propeller connected with the forward strut (çatal) by tension wires (çunda teli) (Fig. 5). The canvas vanes are fitted to this framework. The main axle   For examples, see e.g. http://www.bodrumrehberi.org (accessed 15/05/2009). 2

 TKTVES, see http://www.kultur.gov.tr (accessed 01/06/2009).

1

195

SOMA 2009 is fixed to the tambour on a rectangular frame which is formed by cross beams (yan düver). Through the cross beam, in the middle of this framework, the ninety-degree differential connection is made between a sixty-gear main drive wheel and fener . The drive shaft, passing through the middle of the twelve-sleeved differential gear, transmits power by locking the millstone (Fig. 7). The drive shaft, in connection with a lever system, controls the pressure and friction velocity between the two millstones. Additionally the feeding unit consists of a wooden basin and a balance in front, controlling the flow of grain into the hole in the centre of the millstone. The ground flour accumulates around the outside of the millstone and the sacks are filled by means of a chute leading to the lower floor (Medioli et al. 1977: 53-9). The Turgutreis-Karabag district (Figs. 8-9) Among the four windmills, aligned east-west, at the back of Turgutries, at the edge of the Karabag district, the mill at the east end is partially in a stable condition (Medioli et al. 1977: 39-60). Only the remains about 1m in height of a rubble stone wall from the windmill at the western end exist today. The grinding sections of the other two mills have completely disappeared. In the body of the mills, which were made of local stone, lime mortar was used as binding material and also the wooden beams can be seen in the door space. Joins of brick and plaster were made on the stone walls. Light was provided by small loophole windows, reaching to ground-floor level. Inside the mills there are wall niches arranged in different sizes. Seven or eight stone stairs adjacent to the body wall provided access to the grinding floor (Fig. 9). Peksimet village Fig. 10 There are seven windmills, located north-south on the road, separate from Bodrum-Turgutreis in the Islamhaneleri neighbourhood, towards Gümüşlük. These are largely destroyed, however, the grinding section of mill no. 3, which is close to the transmitter station, is partially stable. The original features of the mill at the north end have been completely removed under the name of restoration. The next mill was largely demolished and the others are also in a dilapidated condition now. Islamhanaleri (Fig. 11) There are five windmills set in a north-south line on a high hill dominating Kargı Bay at Islamhaneleri, off the mountain path between Akyarlar and Bodrum. Today, these mills are abandoned and in a dilapidated condition; mill no. 1 at the north end was partially restored in recent times. Traces of white lime plaster are seen on the rubble stone tressed body section of the mills. Various niches and pits are found on the ground floor. Inside mill no. 4 the main shaft and the wheel still exists today.

Ortakent (Müsgebi) town (Fig. 12) In the town of Ortakent, on the road Bodrum-Turgutreis, seven windmills are located at the upper part of the settlement. The mills in the east-west direction are aligned according to the slope of the land. These windmills are in a poor state of repair, however their facades have been whitewashed in recent times. The original wheel assemblies and millstones can be seen in some of these examples (Aysel 2006: 71-2). The Yalıkavak district (Fig. 13) The three windmills near the Dagbelen turning from the Bodrum-Turgutreis road have been placed under the protection of the Municipality of Yalıkavak. The facades of the mills are whitewashed and the doors have been closed with iron railings. Apart from this mill group, there is a windmill existing on its own in the park at the shore of Yalıkavak. It has been restored and opened to the public in 2005 by the Municipality of Yalıkavak (Fig. 14). As a result we can say that the windmills of the Bodrum peninsula are 19th-century vernacular structural features that reflect the region’s folk culture and architecture. The Bodrum windmills, carrying the general characteristic of Mediterranean architecture, show the Aegean style, together with their material, technical and design features that are unique for the region. These structures sustained their original functions till the 1970s, but unfortunately they have been neglected by reason of intensive tourism and speculative constructional activities. Sadly abandoned to their fate, the mills are important historical and cultural assets of the Bodrum peninsula in need of urgent attention.

Bibliography Aysel, N.R. 2006. Bodrum Müsgebi Ortakent Bir Mimari İnceleme. İstanbul. Baykara, T. 1992. Bodrum. Islam Ansiklopedisi, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 6, 247-249. İstanbul. Elbe, H. 1972. Bodrum (Halikarnassos) ve Müze Rehberi. İstanbul. Evliya Çelebi 1985. Seyahatname. 8, İstanbul. Galanti, A. 1945. Bodrum Tarihi. İstanbul. Medioli. A., et al. 1977. The Grain Cycle and a Windmill in a Village in the Aegean. M.E.T.U. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 3/1, 39-62. Piri Reis 1526 [1973]. Kitâb-ı Bahriye (ed. Y. Senemoğlu). İstanbul. Taşınmaz Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıkları Envanter Sistemi. Available from http://www.kultur.gov.tr (accessed 01/06/2009). Windmills Available from http://www.bodrumrehberi.org (accessed 15/06/2009).

196

Tolga Bozkurt: Windmills of the Bodrum Peninsula

Fig. 1: Map of the study zone showing the location of the windmill groups

Fig. 2: Axonometric view (after Medioli et al. 1977, fig.12)

Fig. 3: A section of the milling floor (after Medioli et al. 1977, fig. 20)

Fig. 5: Axonometric view of the ring and drive mechanism (after Medioli et al. 1977, fig. 14)

Fig. 4: Peksimet: differential connection

197

SOMA 2009

Fig. 6: Ortakent: main axle and drive wheel

Fig. 7: Ortakent: drive shaft and millstone (view from ground floor)

Fig. 8: Windmills of Turgutreis-Karabağ

198

Tolga Bozkurt: Windmills of the Bodrum Peninsula

Fig. 9: Turgutreis-Karabağ: stone stair adjacent to the body wall

Fig. 10: Windmills of Peksimet

Fig. 11: Windmills of Islamhaneleri 199

SOMA 2009

Fig. 12: Windmills of Ortakent (Müsgebi)

Fig. 13: Windmills of Yalıkavak

Fig. 14: Windmill of Yalıkavak (after restoration)

200

The Waterwheel (Tympanum) in Ancient Times Tunç Sezgin Department of Archaeology, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey Various methods and devices were used to raise and manage in ancient times. In general these devices, mainly using wood, have not survived, although we have information on them from early writers. One of these water lifting mechanisms was the waterwheel (tympanum) and some rare remains of them still exist. Although the wheel of the tympanum (drum) was more or less standard in design, there were variances, especially in working systems. As a working principle, the river-set tympanum was turned by the flow, however the models located on smaller streams needed additional power sources. Examples of these smaller tympanum mechanisms are rare but one has recently been found near the ancient city of Eumenia. This particular example of a water-lifting device included both tympanum and terminal of a water system. We take most of our information concerning early waterlifting devices from the architect Vitruvius. In Book X, especially, of his famous Ten Books on Architecture (Vitruvius X, chapters 4-7) we read of water pumping machines, waterwheels, water-drills, etc. Modern researchers into Vitruvius have commented on these methods and the equipment required to operate them – including the feature that interests us here: the tympanum (Boon and Williams, 1966: 122-127; Landels 2000: 61-90; Oleson 1984: 113-115, fig. 30-32). According to Vitruvius, there were two types of tympanum. The first type raised water at its radius as it rotated, while the other drew water centrally. The radial tympanum has an axel in the centre and both sides have wooden disc-shaped enclosing panels. There were usually eight divisions, from the centre to the edges, and the water-lifting troughs were formed at the extremities (Fig. 1) (Vitruvius X, 4. 1-2; Landels 2000: 68, Şekil 15). Water enters into the tympanum’s radial troughs and exits through holes cut in one side of the wheel’s outer disks into a sluice placed higher or lower as the conditions of usage dictated. These holes (Vitruvius called them ‘dove holes’) were approximately 15cm wide (Landels 2000: 68, Şekil 15; Vitruvius X, 4. 2). It is thought that the volume of water flowing from these holes into a centrally-placed sluice would not be great or otherwise it would overflow from the sluice itself. The second type of tympanum has an axel in the centre and wooden arms radiate from the shaft. The tops of the arms are enclosed to form small troughs which fill with water as the wheel turns (Fig. 2). Remains of a Roman example were discovered during excavations at a Rio Tinto Company mine in Spain (Bonn and Williams 1966: 126, Fig. 6; Oleson 1984: 342-346, fig. 113-126; Landels 2000: 73, Şekil 16).

This type of tympanum was completely made of wood and was usually over 4.5m wide (Landels 2000; 73). 24 wooden arms extended from the central axle, resulting in 18 x 13cm troughs. Water enters into these troughs and exits via semicircle holes drilled in one lower side of the trough’s base (Landels 2000; 74). The remains of the above-mentioned Spanish example are thought to be of this second type, but no structural architectural features of it survive. We are fortunate that a partial illustration of a tympanum can be seen in side view in a mosaic found in Suriye Apamea (Fig. 3; Oleson 1984: 185-186, fig. 41). The form of the main body is not understood as the mosaic is incomplete. The only remains that help us to understood the structures that supported these wheels are to be found in the old city of Eumenia in ancient western Phyrigya (Söğüt and Şimşek 2002: 312; Şimşek 2008; 61-62. Res. 41-42). Here there is a water source which has been used since ancient times in the Sarıbaba Hills where the city is located (Fig. 4). There are traces still of workings around and below the rocks from where the source originates. A section of the structure that supported the waterwheel can be seen in the pool which was formed by the enclosure of the water source. The structure would have been made up of three parts: main body, side walls, and tympanum. A good section of the main body stands today at its lower level (Fig. 5). The main body contained a series of pipes and conduits through which the water raised by the wheel would be eventually fed to the city. The varying pipe sizes would determine the volume of water reaching the city’s various cisterns and features (Vitruvius VIII, 6. 2). The quality of workmanship in the visible structural remains resembles the water distribution terminal found in the ancient city of Laodikeia. However at Laodikeia the water is delivered to the distribution terminal with travertine pipes and is then distributed to the city (Şimsek and Büyükkolancı 2006: 88-89, Res. 19-23). In our example the base of the structural remains is 1.65m under water and 4.2m appears above the level of the water. This water level changes because the pool today is used for irrigation. The measurable height of the building which remains today is thus 5.85m, but it is not possible to give an exact height because the bottom of the pool is covered with thick vegetation and soil. For the same reason we are unable to say what kind of foundations the structure rests upon. The main part of the building is irregular on its west side, with a maximum measurable width of 3.5m. The partly broken series of pipes and conduits is clearly seen on this side. A total of ten series of pipes of different calibres is determined (Fig. 6). On the west, south and north sides of

201

SOMA 2009 the building can be seen holes (approx 14cm wide x 20cm high x 12cm deep) for climbing. The person turning the tympanum would also need to climb the sturcture to alter the direction of water flow into the pipes within the main body section, which acted as a water distribution terminal. The reason the west part is so irregular may be because a new series of pipes was required due to blockage, or similar damage. The breaking is clearly seen in the south end and this enables us best to see how it was constructed. The rubble stone, plaster and brick, which form the building, is clearly seen. The east side has a smooth front. This side where the tympanum turns is in 5.85m wide, although the south part is broken away (Fig. 7). The channel where the tympanum axel would have sat, in the east smooth side, is not regular; it is 2.35m long, 0.55-0.50m high, and 0.50m deep. After this channel, the straight side continues to the north for a length of approximately 3.5m. The height is measured at 3.60m from the fitting in which the tympanum was placed to the north. Because there are no remains of the actual tympanum, the height above provides us with some general data about wheel, which could have been approximately 6.80-7.20m wide. The side wall which was made parallel to the east side of the main body is broken; now submerged, it is seen from base level (Fig. 8), but its basic function can be understood. The side wall is roughly 6.90m long and 1.30m wide. With this shape, the building has differences from other descriptions and examples found so far, or from those mentioned in ancient sources. The fact that the wheel lifts water to about 7m and then distributes it via conduits of differing calibres shows it to be perhaps a new type of structure. Since the tympanum itself has not survived we still cannot be sure of its actual means of operation. The area has not been excavated and so all we have to go on are the finds themselves and the nature of the building’s actual location. The fact that there has been a source here, rather than a river, since early times leads us to conclude that either water had to be fed to the building at high velocity to turn the tympanum, or that the tympanum lifted water by an alternative means of power – i.e. man. A man going up through the main body and walking around the tympanum would make the wheel turn. Moving continuously, he would need a means of standing and this could have been provided by a rope hoops suspended from a wooden mechanism (Fig. 9). The area between the water source and the structure is in the shape of pool and its bottom is covered with vegetation. It cannot clearly be determined whether the water was brought to the building via a channel, but so far as can

be ascertained without archaeological investigations there is no evidence of such a channel. It therefore becomes a distinct possibility that the wheel was turned using human labour as described above. If so, could enough water be raised to supply local needs? The researcher J.G Landels, who made the calculations relating to the Spanish example, estimated that about 93.5 litres of water a minute could be raised by obtained by a man in an eight-hour shift (or 0.1 horsepower) (Landels 2000, 74). He added that there would need to be 4 pairs of tympanum, one at every level of the mine, to raise the water, amounting to 11,000 litres of water per hour, over an eight-hour shift of 16 men (Landels 2000, 75). If these estimates are roughly accurate then human force could have generated the volumes of water needed at Eumenia (Fig. 9). Our information about early waterwheels is minimal. Taking the remains and early writings into account it seems that wheels that raised water from a centrally placed sluice was more effective. Looking at the findings and ruins found so far, it is understood that these types of wheel were perhaps more common and the efficiency rates greater – with less overflowing and thus corresponding waste of (human) energy. The wheel found in Spain is very important because wooden material rarely survives. Determining of the sizes of the tympanum is helpful in determining reservoir characteristics and output. The architectural structure of the waterwheel building found at Eumenia will further enable us to understand how water provision was made in the Roman, Byzantine and later periods.

Bibliography Bonn, G.C., Williams, C. 1966 ‘The Dolaucothi Drainage Wheel’, JRS Vol. 56, 122-127. Landels, J.G. 2000, Eski Yunan ve Roma’da Mühendislik. Ankara. Oleson, J.P. 1984. Greek and Roman Mechanical WaterLifting Devices: The History of a Technology. Söğüt, B., Şimşek, C. 2002. ‘Eumeneia’, Dünden Bugüne Çivril Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 301-331. Şimsek, C., Büyükkolancı, M. 2006. ‘Laodikeia Antik Kenti Su Kaynakları ve Dağıtım Sistemi’, Adayla IX, 83-103. Şimşek, C. 2008. ‘Eumeneia Antik Kenti Üzerine’, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 129, 37-68. Vitruvius 1998 Mimarlık Üzerine On Kitap, çev. Suna Güven. İstanbul.

202

Tunç Sezgin: The Waterwheel (Tympanum) in Ancient Times

Fig. 1: Radial tympanum (after Landels 2000: 68)

Fig. 2: Radial tympanum

Fig. 3: Tympaneum from a mosaic floor found in Apemea, Syria (after Oleson1984: fig. 41)

Fig. 4: Spring and pool at Eumenia

Fig. 5: Tympanum structure at Eumenia

Fig. 6: Tympanum structure: pipe fittings

203

SOMA 2009

Fig. 7: Tympanum structure: wheel-mounting face

Fig. 8: Lateral wall to which tympaneum was mounted

Fig. 9: Tympanum structure: attempted reconstruction 204

Underwater Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Black Sea Area in the 20th Century Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina Institute of Oriental studies Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow The Black Sea coast presents great interest for underwater archaeology. Underwater archaeological research had already begun off the coastline of the northern Black Sea in the early decades of the 20th century. The very first underwater exploration in the Black Sea was carried out in 1905 by Russian engineer L. Kolly. Kolly carried out underwater research in Feodosia, a large port in antiquity and medieval times. He discovered amphorae, harbour structures, and other coastal evidence that enabled him to hypothesize the extent of the Black Sea in ancient times.1 In the middle of the 19th century, Count A.S. Uvarov, who examined archaeological monuments in the northern regions adjoining the Black Sea, suggested that the coastal district of ancient Olvia was flooded with the waters of the Bugsky estuary.2 Count Uvarov’s suggestion was proved during archaeological researches, carried out by B.V. Farmakovsky.3 Between 1913 and 1916 V.I. Derenkin examined the submerged constructions of ancient Olvia.4 At the end of the 1930s, underwater archaeological research was carried out by the famous Soviet scholar R.A. Orbeli.5 He was one of the first who tried to clear underwater monuments with the help of suction pumps. Orbeli paid much attention to theoretical methods of underwater archaeology. His book Researches and Findings is the first textbook on underwater archaeology.6 He planned to establish a museum and institute for underwater archaeology in the USSR.7 His methods of research of underwater monuments are still used today. V.D. Blavatsky resumed research in the Black Sea after World War II. Between 1957 and 1965, under his guidance, scientists examined a number of ancient coastal cities on 1   Kolli L.P. Sledy drevnei kulturi na dne morskom (in Russian) // Izvestiy Tavricheskoi uchenoi arhivnoi komissii. Simferopol, 1909. № 43, p. 125137. 2   Uvarov A.S. Issledovanie o drevnostyh Yzhnoi Rossii i beregov Chernogo moriy (in Russian). Vip. 1. SPB, 1851, p. 40. 3   Farmakovskii B.V. Olviy (in Russian). M. 1915, p. 23. 4   Farmakovskii B.V. Otchet o raskopkah v Olviy v 1924g. (in Russian) // SGAIMK. Vip. 1, p. 145 (fig.3). Karasev A.I. Oboronitelnie sooruzheniy Olvii (in Russian) // KSIIMK. Vip. XXII. 1948, p. 32. 5   Orbeli R.A. Gidroarheologiy – Podvodnie istoricheskie iziskaniy bliz drevnih grecheskih gorodov na Chernomorscom poberezhie (in Russian) // Sudopodiem. 1945. №1. p. 140-176. Orbeli R. A. Podvodnye istoricheskie izyskaniy i zadachi EPRONa (in Russian) // EPRON. – 1938 - № XXIII-XXV. – p. 343-346; Orbeli R. A. Gidroarheologicheskaya karta SSSR (in Russian) // EPRON, 1940. -№XXVI-XXVII, p. 177-187; Orbeli R. A. Cheln (drevnyy lodka-odnoderevka) (in Russian) // EPRON. – 1938. - №XXIII-XXV, p. 345-357. 6   Orbeli R. A. Issledovaniy i izhyskaniy. Materialy po istorii podvoodnogo truda s drevneishih vremen do nashih dney ( in Russian). M.-L., 1947 – p. 283. 7   Orbeli R. A. Za razvitie podvoodnoi arheologii (in Russian) // EPRON. –1938 - №XXIII-XXV, p. 359-365.

the northern coasts of the Black Sea, including Nimfey, Pantikapei, Germonas, Fanagoriya, Chersonesos and Olvia, as well as undertaking underwater excavations.8 As a result, it became clear that water level in the Black Sea rose by four metres, in comparison with that in the middle of the 1st millennium, and the sea absorbed around one third of the initial space of ancient cities, including city buildings and port facilities. For the first time it was possible to see the real dimensions, structure and number of inhabitants of ancient cities of the northern Black Sea area. During Blavatsky’s research new methods for underwater studies of cultural layers were worked out and advanced techniques were employed, including echosounding locators and underwater television devices. In August 1962 S.F. Strzheletsky and A.I. Tsekhovoy organized an underwater archaeological expedition in the area of ancient Chersonesos. The aim of the expedition was to examine the submerged part of Chersonesos in the Karantine and Cossack Bay areas.9 After examining the western part of Karantine Bay, the researchers came to the conclusion that underwater constructions there were the port buildings of ancient Chersonesos. In the seasons of 1964 to 1966 the Chersonesos area was examined by the underwater archaeological expedition headed by V.I. Kadeev.10 The aim of the investigations was to determine the purpose of the constructions discovered in Karantine Bay and date them. But the expedition faced unexpected problems. The constructions in the western part of Karantine Bay were by this time determined as Chersonesos’ medieval defence towers. Investigatory   Blavatskii V. D. O podvodnoi arheologii (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheologia. 1958.-№3 – p. 73-89; Blavatsky V. D. , Kuzishin V. I. Podvodnye razvedki v 1958g. (in Russian) // Kratkie Soobscheniy Instituta Arheologii. 1961. №83; Blavatsky V. D., Kuzishin V. I. Podvodnye razvedki drevney Fanagorii (in Russian) // Vesnik AN SSSR. - 1959. №1.; Blavatsky V. D. Podvodnye raskopki Fanagorii v 1959 g. (in Russian) // Soovetskay Arheologia. 1961. №1. p. 277-279; Blavatsky V. D. Raboty podvodnoy Azovo-Chernomorskoi ekspeditsii 1960 g. (in Russian) // Sovetskay Archeologia. 1961. №4. p. 150; Blavatskii V. D. Podvodno-archeologicheskay ekspiditsiy 1962 g. (in Russian) // Sovetskay Archeologia. 1965. №1. p. 272-275; Blavatsky V. D. Podvodnye razvedky v Olvii (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheologia. 1962. №3. p. 225-234; Blavatsky V. D. Technika podvodnyh arheologicheskih rabot (in Russian) // Arheologia i estestvennye nauki. M. 1965. №129. p. 268-278; Blavatsky V. D. Peters B. G. Podvodnye arheologicheskie issledoivaniy v rayone Evpatorii (in Russian) // Kratkie Soobscheniy Instituta Arheologii. 1967. №104. p. 73-78; Blavatsky V. D., Peters B. G. Korablekrusheniy kontsa IV-nachala III vv do N.E. okolo Donuzlava (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheollogia. 1969. №3. p. 151-158; Blavattsky V. D., Peters B. G. Priemy podvodnyh arheologicheskih rabot pry izuchenii ostatkov drevnego korablekrushenia (in Russian) // Morskie podvodnnye issledovaniy. M. 1969. p. 339-342. 9   Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №819. (in Russian). 10   Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №1400, D. №1189, D. №1606. (in Russian). 8

205

SOMA 2009 shafts also showed the remains of an earlier cultural layer beneath them. The expedition also discovered the remains of a defence tower on the bottom of the bay, dated to 4-5 century CE. So, the question about the location of port facilities of ancient and medieval Chersonesos remained open.

the Horn of Meganom. It is interesting that more than 15 ships sunk during the Crimean War (1854-1856) were discovered here. For example, some ships from a British squadron were found near Balaklava and French ships near the Chersonesos lighthouse and Eupatoria. Russian ships were sunk in Sevastopol Bay, blocking its entrance.

During research in the Round and Sand Bays ancient amphorae and fragments dated 4th century BCE to 3rd century CE were discovered, and also fragments of jugs and amphorae dated 9th-11th centuries CE. The finds, undoubtedly ship cargo, proved that shipwrecks frequently occurred there. They were caused by a sand bar in the centre of the bay. The attempt to trace an ancient wharf in Sand Bay, mentioned by Z. Arkas, was not successful, although two stone blocks, found on the sea bed, could belong to that wharf. The researchers found the site of a shipwreck, located 35m from the shore and 5m deep in Sand Bay. It dates to the 1st century CE.

Since 1998 a group of researchers from the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Science and the National Preservation Association of Chersonesos Taurica (NPACT), headed by V. Lebedinski, have been working on a comprehensive programme of studies of underwater archaeological objects in the waters of the Heraclean Peninsula. These studies are carried out within an international project of underwater archaeological researches of Chersonesos and the chora as part of a project to create a fundamental database of the underwater archaeological sites of the Black Sea and the creation of an underwater archaeological map.

In August 1974 the Chersonesos Museum carried out underwater research in the western area of Archer Bay.11 The scientists discovered a large number of ceramic fragments dated from the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE and to the 13th/14th centuries CE. Ancient ships, caught in storms, usually took refuge in nearby bays, including Archer Bay. Ships often failed to make the necessary right turn and sunk. At the beginning of the 1980s, underwater archaeological research was carried out on the sea bed in the Kerch Strait, near Zavetnoye village, during which scientists discovered and examined ancient Akra, a populated area of the European Bosporus mentioned by ancient authors (Strabon, Pliny, Pseudo-Arrian).12 Scientists had failed to determine that site for more than a century. The research proved that today ancient Akra is deep under water. Fortress walls, towers and other city buildings were discovered on the sea bed, including a square stone well, found at a depth of 3m and about 170m from the shore. A narrow stone ridge was discovered about 600m from the shore and 10m deep; lead and stone remains of anchors were found nearby, as well as ferrous anchors from ancient times. The ridge probably served as a defensive pier for Akra’s harbour. During the research and excavations scientists drew the plan of a flooded city and lifted various archaeological finds.

In the years 1998 to 2000 a classification of NPACT data and finds was made. As a result a database was created to accommodate all the data relating to underwater archaeological objects kept at NPACT facilities and the results of previous studies were also processed and analysed.

Underwater research, carried out in the 1990s enabled localization of a large number of archaeological objects. In 1995 the city archives of ancient Chersonesos were discovered among flooded remains in Karantine Bay. A Venetian ship, dated 14th century, was found and examined in Sudak Bay. In 1999 a Byzantine ship was found near   Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №2079 (in Russian). 12  Shilik K. K. Issledovaniy antichnoi Akry (in Russian) //Arheologicheskie otkritiy 1985 g. M. 1987. p. 632; Shilik K. K. Lokalizitsia antichnoi Akry kak primer kompleksnogo analiza v istorico-geografichedskih issledovaniyh (in Russian) // Kompleksnye metody v izuchennii istorii s drevneishih vremen do nashih dney. – M. 1984. p. 108-111; Shilik K. K. Reaboty Bosporskogo otryda (in Russian) //Arheologicheskie otkritiy 1984 g. M. 1986. p. 493. 11

Between 1999 and 2007 a Russian-Ukrainian research team began examinations in the immediate region of Sebastopol – in the area from Cape Sarych in the north to Cape Lukull in the south. The purpose of the 1999-2007 expedition (jointly undertaken by the Moscow Underwater Archaeological Expedition, the Institute of Oriental Studies, and NPACT) was the tracing and examination of undersea archaeological objects and features in the Sebastopol area: a computer map of the underwater archaeological objects found is being updated. The expeditions have discovered some unique finds dating back to Roman and Byzantine times, including a Roman vessel (3rd century BC) that sunk in the vicinity of Kacha, as well as four Byzantine times (one dated late6th/early-7th century AD spotted at Cape Tyubek and three 10th-century AD wrecks), near the western end of Kruglaya Bay, off the Chersonesos settlement and in the vicinity of Uchkuevka village. At these wrecks were found the remains of ship structures, anchors, and concentrated fragments of the amphorae that made up the cargoes of these vessels. Analysis of the ceramics from the 10th-century wrecks has revealed a second baking of the clay. Burnt fragments of wood also indicate that wrecks were caused by fire. The fire and the time of wrecks (10th century AD) allowed us to put forward a hypothesis that the vessels found were sunk by Vladimir, the Grand Duke of Kiev, during the siege of Cherson/Corsun in 989-990 AD. This can complete the picture of that legendary siege, known only from literature, by showing that the blockade was both by land and sea. In addition we managed to obtain

206

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Underwater Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Black Sea Area an exact dating (up to one year) of the wrecks, which is a unique fact in itself and helps to interpret and age-date of other sets of data gathered by the expedition. The findings and results of the surveys conducted at the ancient anchorage off Chersonesos, and in areas considered to be dangerous for navigation such as Cape Chersonesos, have thrown light on a number of critical navigational features in medieval times and earlier. Together with archaeological evidence our studies have gathered paleography and geomorphology data, and, within the context of the sea transgression, all our findings enable us to reconstruct the topography of the ancient coast line.13 The results of our studies will form part of a larger project of developing an archaeological park within Chersonesos and the chora, headed by G. Nikolaenko. Under this umbrella project, for the first time, we have a chance to combine both surface and submerged archaeological objects. The underwater mapping element of the greater project is continuing under the archaeological expedition of the Taras Shevchenko National Kiev University (Ukraine), under the leadership of S. Zelenko. This underwater archaeological research is providing a great deal of unique scientific material. Reports of underwater archaeological investigations carried out near Novy Svet (Crimea) by P. Shults, V. Blavatski and I. Baranov (1957 to 1990) mention the presence of some ceramic fragments on the bay floor. In 1999 the underwater archaeological expedition of the Taras Shevchenko National Kiev University began researching in Sudak-Lymen Bay and remains of a wreck were found 5km from ancient Soldaya (Novy Svet). The site of the wreck is in western part of the bay, 50m from the shore and at a depth of 10-12m. It occupies 60 x 60m2 of gravel-sand soil covered with numerous fragments of ceramics. To determine the depths of bedding and diversity of the material the research was

started from two platforms 4 x 4m2 in size and located at different parts of the site. A significant collection of archaeological material has been lifted and based on preliminary data the ship was loaded with pithos, amphorae, table and kitchenware, glass items, and glazed ceramics, which were found in considerable numbers. Amphorae of the following three types appear to be the most numerous and submitted by series. The first type is presented by amphorae with pear-shaped body and arcshaped handles widespread in the East Mediterranean, as well at the shores of the Black and Azov Seas in the 13-14th centuries. On the walls and handles there are numerous graffiti and four of them were stamped. Most of the amphorae are sealed using pine bark. The second type is the cone-shaped, small amphorae, 30cm high, known in layers of the 12-13th centuries in Chersonesos, Alushta (Crimea), as well as in Bulgaria, etc. The third type can be specified as a small amphora with ovoid body, a characteristic concave bottom, small throat, and flat handles. Three specimens of such amphora have been found in Istanbul (Turkey) in a layer of the 13th century. As well as serial finds some sporadic specimens of table and glazed ware of the same period, which can be considered as personal items of the crews, were discovered. Analysis of all finds allows us to date the shipwreck to the third quarter of the 13th century. It is important to note that traces of a large fire were seen on the collected material (amphorae and glaze ceramics). By analysis of documents relating to sea trade in the Black Sea in the 12-14th centuries, as well as the dating and load composition of the ship, allow us to make a hypothesis that it was a Pisan ship destroyed by Soldaya in fight against a Genoese ship on August 14, 1277. In conclusion it should be mentioned that today the Crimean coast remains highly attractive from an archaeological point of view and presents many questions and mysteries for underwater archaeologists.

  Lebedisky V.V. Report of underwater archeological studies of the Sevastopol water area 2001. Archive of the National Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy” D. № 3536; Lebedisky V.V. Report of underwater archeological studies of the Sevastopol water area 2002. Archive of the National Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy” D. № 3639. Lebedisky V.V. Report of underwater archeological studies of the Sevastopol water area 2003. Archive of the National Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy” D. № 3809; Lebedisky V.V. Report of underwater archeological studies of the Sevastopol water area 2004. Archive of the National Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy” D. № 3810. Lebedisky V.V. Report of underwater archeological studies of the Sevastopol water area 2005. Archive of the National Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy” D. № 3911(in Russian).

13

207

208

Wooden Combs from the Shipwreck Excavations at Novy Svet, on the Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine Yana Morozova and Sergii Zelenko Centre for Underwater Archaeology, Kiev National Taras Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine The Centre for Underwater Archaeology focuses its main research activities on the excavation of the thirteenthcentury Novy Svet shipwreck, known as the Pisa Wreck because of its tentative identification as a Pisan ship that was sunk by the Genoese on August 14, 1277. The shipwreck site is located in the Bay of Sudak, near the small town-resort Novy Svet (the south-eastern part of the Crimean Peninsula) (Fig. 1). Its excavation area is 150m2. The current excavated areas depth is 10-12m. The seabed deposit consists of large stones and rocks, gravel, sandy and muddy silt. Along with pottery, rope and other findings, wooden artefacts have been identified on the site. The wooden material recorded in 2003-2007 on the wreck at Novy Svet includes combs, spoons and tools (brush with wooden handle, maul). This contribution describes the wooden finds found during the underwater archaeological excavations at the Novy Svet site and focuses on the wooden combs retrieved from the wreck. Seven wooden combs were found on the site. They all are single-piece and double-sided: Three combs bear incised decoration (one or two lines) in the central undecorated section, which is bounded by a set of large widely spaced teeth on one side, and fine, closely packed teeth on the other. Two combs are complete with partially missing teeth. Two are undecorated on the central panel. Another two combs have concentric circles. The fine teeth are separated from the coarse teeth by a solid centrepiece. The teeth, originally about 2.5-4cm long, are triangular with their widest part correlating to the shape of the comb’s outer edge. So far the wood used for these items is unknown and this is a subject for the future investigation and analyses. The first comb (Fig. 2) is complete, only some teeth are lost. It is decorated with two transverse incised lines at the base of the teeth on both sides. These lines form the borders of the central panel, which has no decoration. The preserved dimensions are: 8cm length; 7cm width; 1cm thickness; 3.2 large teeth height; 2.8 cm small teeth height. The second comb (Fig. 3) is also complete, only some teeth are lost. It is decorated with a single transverse incised line on the solid centrepiece. The central panel has no decoration. Preserved dimensions are: 8cm length; 7.5cm width; 1cm thickness; 3.5cm large teeth height; 3.4cm small teeth height. Only half of the third comb is preserved (Fig. 4). It is undecorated and has its edges slightly curved inward. Its

dimensions are: 6cm length; 4cm width; 0.7-1cm thickness; 2.5cm large teeth height; 2.5cm small teeth height. The fragment of the fourth comb is also undecorated (Fig. 5). No vertical sides survived. Its dimensions are: 6cm preserved length; 3.5cm width; 1cm thick; 2.6cm large teeth height; 2.5cm small teeth height. The fragment of the next large comb (Fig. 6) has a circular alternate pattern: deep engraved hollows composing a lozenge motif followed by engraved circles with a point in the centre, framed by incised circular double lines. Its dimensions are: 6cm length; 7cm width; 1.2cm width of centrepiece. The next comb is preserved only as a long and thin fragment with two circles on both its sides (Fig. 7). It is not possible to determine how many circles and what pattern it had. Its dimensions are: 9.5cm preserved length; 1.5cm width; 1.7cm thickness; 4cm large teeth height; 3.5cm small teeth height. There is also a fragment of a dried comb (Fig. 8). The surviving decoration shows two incised lines at the edges. The lines form the borders of the central panel, which has no decoration. The preserved dimensions are: 3.5 х 3.5cm. Wooden combs with similar decoration are known from the Russian Steppe, Egypt and Central Asia; a fragment of a comb is known from the 11th-century Serce Limani shipwreck (Bass et al. 2004). The association with the Novy Svet combs can be found in the collection of the Byzantine bone artefacts published in Everyday Life in Byzantium (Papanikola-Bakirtzi (ed.) 2002). All single-piece, double-sided combs from the Novy Svet wreck excavation have been preserved in fragments however they can be divided into two distinctive types: The first type of rectangular shape is long and narrow with straight or slightly curved long sides and circles design (two examples). The second type represents combs of rectangular shape, wide and broad with long curved inward or straight sides. They are decorated by incised lines near the teeth on the central panel (four examples). One of the combs is too small to classify. Its fragment can be speculatively defined as a variation of the second type – an example with straight long sides. The combs with two types of teeth – the large, widely spaced ones for untangling the hair, and the fine, closely

209

SOMA 2009 packed ones for cleaning. These items were possibly in everyday use by the ship’s crew. The single-piece combs bearing, numerous concentric circles at different points are known from Sarkel, Esli Kermen and Novgorod (Flerova 1998; Kolchin 1989; Smirnova 2005). Russian researchers have named this pattern as ‘circular network’. Combs with concentric circles at different points are believed to be of an apotropaic character. Decoration with concentric circles and similar designs, either with lozenges or X-shaped motifs are found on wooden combs from the Louvre, Cairo and Berlin Museums. Most of combs found at medieval settlements are of bone or ivory. There are only few wooden examples known from land excavations. Due to the specific deposit conditions, organic materials dry out and deteriorate quickly; only damp and wet or, contra, extra dry conditions (i.e. in deserts) are suitable for the preservation of organic finds. Good examples have come from many land settlements in Russia and the Ukraine (i.e. Novgorod and Sarkel). The dates of the bone items range between the 9th and 11th centuries AD. The latest date for such items from Eski Kermen is the 13th century and one example of a wooden comb was found there. The decoration known as ‘circular network’ is a feature of 11th-century archaeological materials, not earlier. Two-

sided, one-piece combs were brought to medieval Russia in the 11th century and were widely circulated there in the 12th century. In the Byzantine world this type of comb was common in the 13th century. The main types of comb – one-sided and two-sided, onepiece examples – had a pan-European distribution, but some other types can serve as indicators for ethnical, cultural and trade-route characteristics.

Bibliography Bass, F.G., Matthews, D.S., Steffy, J.R. and van Doorninck, F.H. 2004. Serçe Limanı: The ship and its anchorage, crew, and passengers. A&M University Press, Texas. Flerova, V. 1998. ‘Grebni Srednevekovogo Podon’ja’. Materialy po Archeologii Istorii i Etnographii Tavrii (MIAET) 6: 625-233. Kolchin, B.A., 1989. Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Russia. British Archaeological Reports International Series 495. Oxford. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. (ed.) 2002. Everyday Life in Byzantium. Athens. Smirnova, L., 2005. Comb-making in Medieval Novgorod (950-1450) An Industry in Transition. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1369. Oxford.

Fig. 1. Map of the Crimean Peninsula and Sudak Bay showing location of the Novy Svet shipwreck site.

210

Yana Morozova and Sergii Zelenko: Wooden Combs from the Shipwreck Excavations at Novy Svet

Figs. 2-9. Wooden combs from the Novy Svet Shipwreck

211

SOMA 2009

Fig. 10. Byzantine antler combs

212

Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region Gülay Apa Department of Art History, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey Bozkır is a district of the city of Konya, a connection point between central Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean. It has been populated since Neolithic times. In Bozkır and its region there are many settlements from different ages and civilizations.1 In ancient times it was known as İsaura Vetus and Leontopolis and it fell within the borders of the wider region of İsauria. After passing into the hands of Turkish rulers in the 1400s its name was changed to Bozkır, from the Turkish Beg called Bozkır Beg. It is also known that in the 16th and 17th centuries it had other names such as Sırıstad, Silistad and Seriüstad (Yılmaz 2007: 26-27). In this region, Turkish rule began with the Anatolian Seljuks and continued with the sons of Karaman, Eşref, Hamid and Turgut. During Ottoman times it often changed hands between the sons of Karaman and Ottomans, but eventually, during the reign of Fatih the Conqueror, it became a permanent Ottoman territory (Tuş 2007: 61). Although Turkish settlements began during the incursions of the Anatolian Seljuks, most of the mosques of the region are buildings constructed during the late Ottoman period. These mosques have 19th- and 20th-century architectural features, but most of them are either reconstructed or restored fully because of the damage that has occurred over time. The topic of our research is the wooden decoration in the mosques of Bozkır and the villages around it. The names of the buildings researched are: Akçapınar Mosque (1892), Çarşı Mosque (1872), Dere Büyük Mosque (1872), Harmanpınar Büyük Mosque (1793), Hisarlık Mosque (1865),2 Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi Mosque (19th century), Sorkun Lower Street Mosque (20th century) and Yolören Mosque (1849). Wood, which has a significant role both as a building and decorative material in the mosques of Bozkı, is used for external parts of the buildings, such as door and window features, and in internal areas as load-bearing elements and also used in ceilings, mihrabs (niche of a mosque indicating the direction of Mecca), minbars, pulpits, and windows. Mihrabs The mihrabs of the Dere Büyük Mosque (Fig. 1a), Hisarlık Mosque (Fig. 1b-c), Mosque of Karacaardıç   For a history of Bozkır see Yılmaz, M., 1990; Bahar, H. 1991; Bahar, H. 1995: 219-246; Bahar, H 1996: 51-91 Bahar, H. 2007: 2-18. 2   For the architecture features of the Hisarlık mosque, see Erdemir, Y., 2007: 333-354. 1

Çeşme Mahallesi (Fig. 1d), Çarşı Mosque, Sorkun Town Mosque (Fig. 1e) and Yolören Mosque (Fig. 1f) are unique examples of mihrabs. In mihrabs, ground engraving, drilling-work, appliqué, and hand-carving techniques are used. In appliqué, each part, which is made by using drilling-work or ground-engraving technique,3 is individually formed and applied the wood, either by adhesives or nails. In the curves of the mihrab of the Dere Büyük Mosque and on its crest, drilling-work is used, whereas on its tablet and corner-arches a ground-engraving technique is used. In the mihrabs of the Çarşı Mosque, pieces, which are made of ground-engraving and drilling-work techniques, are applied to the curves. In the mihrab (the one used as the last meeting area of the mosque) from Hisarlık, groundengraving technique is used, whereas in the mihrab of the harim hand-carving is featured. On the curves of mihrabs, mostly floral decorations are seen. With regard to the the geometrical decorations, only motifs of zencirek can mostly be seen. The geometrical curves, which are comparatively narrower than the others, are used in order to distinguish the floral decorations from each other. Floral decorations consist of stylized flowers and leaves, which are connected to each other through ‘S’ or ‘C’ shapes, or compositions of the same motifs which are repeated again and again on a circular axis. The mihrab of the mosque in Yolören village is differentiated from the others because of its length (4.6) and programme of decoration. The surface of the mihrab is divided into rectangular and square panels on vertical and horizontal axes. Each surface of the panels is filled with floral decorations, which are created by using groundengraving technique. The flowers, connected to each other with the ‘S’ and ‘C’ motif shapes, and acanthus leaves, which have a central composition, are predominantly used. Groups of flowers surround the crest. The mihrab of the Hisarlık Mosque is also another unique example of the hand-carved technique. The curves surrounding the mihrab are decorated with curling branches. In the curves of the mihrab (the one used as the last meeting area of the mosque), flowers with curling branches in ground-engraving technique are seen, and on its crest, as in the Mosque of Yolören, curves of ‘S’ and ‘C’   For Turkish woodwork, see Ögel, B., 1957: 110-220; Kerametli, C., 1962: 5-13; Ögel, S., 1965: 110-117; Öney, G., 1970: 135-149; Yücel, E., 1975: 3-11; Ersoy, A., 1993, Yücel, E., 1985: 9-13; Yücel, E., 1993: 169-194; Aktemur, A., 2002: 99-105. 3

213

SOMA 2009 shape and central compositions are seen. In the curves of the mihrab of the Büyük Mosque in Dere, curling branches with leaves and flower motifs in drilling-work are seen.

Aşağı Mahalle. At Dere Büyük and Yolören, the surfaces of the minbar backboards (east side) have floral decorations all over.

In the mihrabs of the mosques of Bozkır Çarşı, Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi and Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle, compositions made by drilling-work and with the curves of ‘S’ and ‘C shape, are applied. The mihrabs of the Bozkır Çarşı and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi Mosques are austere examples with regard to their decoration. The motifs used in the mihrabs of the Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle Mosque are different from other examples.

Pulpits

Minbars Eight minbars from the Bozkır area preserve their features and uniqueness today. In these minbars, ground-engraving, drilling-work and appliqué techniques are used. There are significant differences between them however. Ground-engraving is used on the aynalık in the minbars of the mosques of Akçapınar (Fig. 2a), Yolören (Fig. 2b), Harmanpınar Büyük (Fig. 2c), Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle (Fig. 2d) and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi (Fig. 2e). Ground-engraving is also used on the entrance crests of the minbars of the mosques at Harmanpınar Büyük, Hisarlık and Yolören. Drilling-work is seen on the side panels of the chalets and railings of the minbars of the mosques at Akçapınar, Dere Büyük, Harmanpınar Büyük, Hisarlık (Fig. 2f), Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi, Çarşı and Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle. This technique is also used on the entrance crests of the mosques of Akçapınar, Dere Büyük, Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi, Çarşı and Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle. The motifs on the aynalık of the minbar of the Hisarlık Mosque are engraved using drilling-work as well. Another technique often used for minbars is appliqué. The wooden material engraved in drilling-work is again applied to the wooden surface. The backboards of the minbars of the mosques of Dere Büyük and Çarşı feature this technique. As with mihrabs, the minbars are rich in decoration, mostly floral and geometrical motifs are seen. In the floral decorations, curling branches connected to each other by ‘S’ and ‘C’ shapes are seen, as well as naturalistic flowers; the geometrical decorations include zigzag and zencirek motifs. For decoration minbars are usually divided into three categories: predominantly floral; predominantly geometrical; and a combination of the two. Floral decorations are found in the minbars of the mosques of Harmanpınar Büyük and Akçapınar predominantly, whereas geometrical decorations are found in the minbars of the mosques of Hisarlık, Çarşı and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi. Those with both floral and geometrical decorations in harmony are seen in the minbars of the mosque of Sorkun

Preaching desks (pulpits) in the mosques of Dere Kasabası Büyük, Yolören (Fig 3a), Harmanpınar Büyük (Fig 3b), Hisarlık (Fig 3c) and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi (Fig 3d) and Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle (Fig 3e) still survive and preserve their unique features. Pulpits match mihrabs and minbars in terms of decoration and techniques: groundengraving, appliqué and drilling-work are found. The pulpit in the Hisarlık Mosque is built independently, whereas others usually are built either in the eastern wall or the south-eastern corner. Pulpits built in the southeastern corner, have (two) frontages which are decorated differently from each other. Appliqué technique is used on the pulpits of the mosques of Dere Kasabası and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi. Ground-engraving technique is used in Yolören and Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle, whereas drilling-work is used in the mosques of Yolören, Harmanpınar Büyük and Hisarlık. Pulpits generally feature floral and geometrical motifs. The pulpits in the mosques of Dere are located on the western wall. In the railings there are stylized leaves with curves of ‘S’ and ‘C’ in ground-engraving technique. Two frontages are found on the pulpit in the Yolören Mosque, which is situated in the southeast of the harim. The pulpit, the body of which consists of triangular pieces, has decorations only on its railings. The curves on the two sides of the railings have different engravings. The northern railing is engraved with ground-engraving technique and has a floral central composition. These flowers are combined within each other with leaves. The western railing features latticework and has ‘S’ curves at its edges. There are two frontages on the pulpit of the Harmanpınar Büyük Mosque, which is situated in the southeast of the harim. The body of the pulpit is quite plain, but its railings are decorated with zencirek motifs in latticework. The railings of the pulpit stairs are decorated with geometrical motifs in hand-carved technique. The pulpit of the Hisarlık Mosque is different from the other examples. Each frontage consists of curves which are foiled-arched and niched. The curves and surfaces of the arches are painted green and red alternately. The pulpit of the Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi Mosque is located in the south-eastern corner and thus only the northern and western frontages can be seen. The column base has concave arches. In the surface of the column base, square panels are constructed with wooden bars in appliqué technique. Each square has diamond motifs in appliqué technique and bevelled edges in the shape of ‘C’. The cell in the north consists of two lines of curves. The curves in the lower one are narrower and it has a stylized 214

Gülay Apa: Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region branch with leaves on it. The curves in the upper line have curling leaves towards the centre of the circle in appliqué technique and are connected to each other along the horizontal axis. In the western part the lower curve runs in the same direction. Stylized leaf motifs are also applied to the surface of the upper curve

of the door wings of the Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi Mosque are divided into panels on the horizontal and vertical axis. The wide central panel has a twelve-cornered star made of wooden bars. The surface of the door wings leading to the last meeting area are divided into square panels and each panel is decorated with diamond motifs.

The pulpit of the Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle Mosque is situated in the south-eastern corner of the harim. The frontages are decorated differently. The column bar in the northern one consists of irregular quadrangles, whereas the western one consists of wooden bars placed on top of each other. The northern railings have stylized leaves and flowers placed between the curling stems applied to the surface. In the other direction, a similar composition is created with the same technique. Each section of the pulpit is painted in green, blue, yellow and red oil-colours.

Window screens and shutters

Mahfils (meeting areas) Although this study looks at small-scale buildings, all of them have internal meeting places (mahfils) that cover a large area in the harim. Mahfils are either ‘U’ shape or in flat plan schema. In the Mosques of Akçapınar (Fig 4a), Yolören (Fig 4b), Hisarlık (Fig 4c), Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi (Fig 4d), Çarşı (Fig 4e), Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle (Fig 4f) and Üçpınar the mahfils are ‘U’ shape. In the Mosques of Dere Büyük (Fig 4g) and Harmanpınar Büyük (Fig 4h) the mahfils are in square plan. In the mihrab axis of these meeting areas there are semicircles, quadrangles or oval müezzin’s balcony. The mahfils of the Mosques of Yolören, Çarşı and Dere Büyük are semicircular, whereas at Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi, Sorkun Aşağı Mahalle and Üçpınar they are quadrangular. The Mosque of Harmanpınar Büyük is oval shaped. Interestingly, the mahfil at Hisarlık is in the shape of a pulpit. The railings of mahfils are generally of latticework technique and are commonly placed not only on the upper parts of the mahfil but also generally in the lower parts as well. On the railings of the mahfil at Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi there are geometrical decorations in appliqué technique and this differentiates it from the other examples. Other mahfils have decorated supporting pillars or arches, of which the Hisarlık Mosque has the best example. The pillars and/or arches feature floral decorations both in ground-engraving and hand-carved techniques. In the mahfil at Yolören the arches are not functional but for decorative purposes only. Door wings The door wings of the Yolören (Fig 5a), Hisarlık (Fig 5b) and Karacaardıç Çeşme Mahallesi (Fig 5c) Mosques still preserve their unique features. The ground-engraving and framework techniques are found. The door wings of Yolören and Hisarlık Mosques are decorated with floral designs. The surfaces are divided into further panels on the horizontal and vertical axis and each surface is filled with stylized leaves and flowers, which are connected to each other with the curves of ‘S’ and ‘C’ shape. The surfaces

Unfortunately there are no unique examples of window screens and shutters surviving today, except for the windows (Fig 6) and shutters (Fig 7) of the Hisarlık Mosque. The upper windows of the mosque have external wooden window screens, whereas the lower windows have internal wooden shutters. The shutters have floral and geometrical decorations in ground-engraving technique, as well as stylized flower motifs and pitcher, in hand-carved technique. Ceilings There are examples of decorated ceilings (Fig 8) in the mosques of Dere, Hisarlık, Merkez, Sorkun and Yolören. Either an eight- or six- cornered star, or a circular core, is set into the flat wooden ceiling, which is fixed from below. The finest examples are seen at Hisarlık. Wooden bars, at 90-degree angles, are set into the flat wooden ceiling, which is fixed from below, and cover the whole surface of the ceiling. Furthermore, a six-cornered star is set into the centre of the ceiling. The inner parts of the star are filled with geometrical compositions, which also consist of many-cornered stars. Taking both the construction and decorative techniques into consideration, many similar ceilings are frequently found in civil and religious architecture in Anatolia. Conclusion In the light of all the examples analysed so far, it can be seen that the elements found in the harims of the mosques have both technique and decoration in common: especially mihrabs, minbars, pulpits and meeting places. Without analysis it is difficult to be certain about the types of wood used, since most of the wooden features were painted over during renovations. Both cedar and walnut are very common in these regions, so most probably these trees were used when the buildings were constructed initially. With regard to the decorations, ground- engraving, appliqué and latticework and hand-carved techniques are those used most frequently. The ‘S’ and ‘C’ curves, curling stems and branches, stylized leaves and flowers, gülbezeks, and automorphic shapes are the motifs most preferred. Although they share common features with to technique, the decorative programmes in each building differ. No inscriptions relating to the architect or craftsmen are found and it is probable that different artists worked in these buildings.

215

SOMA 2009 Looking at the 19th- and 20th-century country mosques in Konya and its region, it can be seen that nearly all the mihrabs, minbars, pulpits, and meeting areas have similar features. These country buildings represent a synthesis of local features and late-Ottoman preferences (e.g. baroque, rococo, and Empire architectural and decorative influences). These country buildings, although small in scale, occupy an important place in Turkish art, since they reflect both the sophistication of the artist and the tastes of country people. Wooden features in the mosques of the late-Ottoman period in central districts of Konya (e.g. Ahırlı, Beyşehir, Çumra, Hadim, Ilgın, Kadınhanı, Taşkent, Seydişehir),4 and many other districts, have similarities, both technically and decoratively, with those found in Bozkır. In order to preserve these buildings, although some have been poorly renovated and others lost their uniqueness totally, it is essential to have cultural sustainability, and to transfer this cultural heritage to subsequent generations.

Bibliography Aktemur, A. 2002. Türk Ahşap İşçiliği, Türkler, 6, 99-105, Ankara. Bahar, H. 1991. İsauria Bölgesi Tarihi, (Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi), Konya. Bahar, H. 2007. Erken Dönemlerde Bozkır ve Çevresinin Tarihi, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 2-18, Konya. Bahar, H. 1995. Konya Çevresi Tarih Araştırmaları-1: Hititlerden Romalılara Kadar İsauria Bölgesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Edebiyat Dergisi, 9-10, 219-246, Konya. Bahar, H. 1996. İsauria Bölgesi’nin Antik Çağ’daki Yerleşim Merkezleri, Anadolu Araştırmaları, XIV, Prof. Dr. Afif Erzen’e Armağan, 51-91, İstanbul. Başar, E., Şimşir, Z. 2007. Ahırlı’daki Türk Devri Yapıları, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 355-369, Konya.

  For these monuments, see Erdemir, Y., 1985; Çetinaslan, M., 2005; Kara, H., 2005; Danışık, Ş., 2007;; Karpuz, H., 2009; Erdemir, Y., 1986: 193-200; Duran, R., 1988: 47-62; Başar, E.and Şimşir, Z., 2007: 355-369; Doğan, S., 2007: 370-391. 4

Çetinaslan, M. 2005. Konya Camilerindeki Mahfiller, (S.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Konya. Danışık, Ş. 2007. Seydişehir’deki Türk Devri Yapıları, (S.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Konya. Doğan, S. 2007. Bozkır’da Türk-İslam Devri Yapıları, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 370-391, Konya. Duran, R. 1988. Konya Sarayönü’nde Üç Ahşap Camii, Vakıflar Dergisi, XX, 47-62, Ankara. Erdemir, Y. 2007. Bozkır Yöresi’ndeki Ahşap Camilerin Zengin Süslemeli Bir Örneği, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 333-354, Konya. Erdemir, Y. 1985. Konya ve Yöresindeki Nakışlı Ahşap Camiler, (S.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi), Konya. Erdemir, Y. 1986. Konya-Beyşehir Bayındır Köyü Camii, Vakıflar Dergisi, XIX, 193-200, Ankara. Kara, H. 2005. Konya- Hadim ve Taşkent Türk Devri Yapıları, (S.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Konya. Karpuz, H. 2009. Türk Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri 1-3, Ankara. Kerametli, C. 1962. Osmanlı Devri Ağaç İşleri Tahta, Oyma, Sedef, Bağa ve Fildişi Kakmalar, Türk Etnoğrafya Dergisi, 4, 5-13, Ankara. Ögel, B. 1957. Selçuklu Devri Anadolu Ağaç İşçiliği Hakkında Notlar, Yıllık Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1, 110220, Ankara. Ögel, S. 1965. Anadolu Ağaç Oymacılığında Mail Kesim, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 1, 110-117, İstanbul. Öney, G. 1970. Anadolu’da Selçuklu ve Beylikler Devri Ahşap Teknikleri, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 3, 135-149, İstanbul. Tuş, M. 2007. Bozkır: Osmanlılar Dönemi, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 61, Konya. Yılmaz, M. 1990. Bozkır ve Çevresinin Tarihi Coğrafyası, Konya. Yılmaz, M. 2007. Bozkır Çevresinde Tahrip Olan Kültür Varlıkları, Bozkır’ın Dünü ve Bugünü Sempozyumu, 12 Kasım 2006, 26-27, Konya. Yücel, E. 1975. Selçuklu Ağaç İşçiliği, Sanat Dünyamız, 2:4, 3-11, İstanbul. Yücel, E. 1985. Türk Sanatında Ağaç İşçiliği, Antika, 6, 9-13, İstanbul. Yücel, E. (1993) Türk Sanatında Ağaç İşçiliği, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 88, 169-194, İstanbul.

.

216

Gülay Apa: Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region

A

D

B

E Fig. 1: Mihrabs

Figs 2 A and B. Minbars 217

C

F

SOMA 2009

C

D

E

F Fig. 2: Minbars

218

Gülay Apa: Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region

A

B

C

D

E Fig. 3: Pulpits

FIgs. 4A and B. Mahfils (meeting areas)

219

SOMA 2009

C

D

E

F

G

H Fig. 4 Mahfils (meeting areas)

220

Gülay Apa: Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region

A

B

C

Fig. 5: Door wings

Fig. 6: Window screens

221

SOMA 2009

Fig. 7: Window shutters

222

Gülay Apa: Wooden Decoration in the Mosques of Bozkır and its Region

Fig. 8: Ceilings

223