36
ARAŞTIRMA
SONUÇLARI
TOPLANTISI
2. CİLT
Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü
Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü
36.
ARAŞTIRMA SONUÇLARI
TOPLANTISI
2. CİLT
07-11 MAYIS 2018
ÇANAKKALE
T.C.
KÜLTÜR VE TURİZM BAKANLIĞI
Ana Yayın No: 3628/2
Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları
Yayın No: 184/2
YAYINA HAZIRLAYAN
Dr. Candaş KESKİN
07-11 Mayıs 2018 tarihlerinde gerçekleştirilen
40. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu,
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi’nin katkılarıyla
gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Kapak ve Uygulama
Arel Görsel Tanıtım San. Tic. Ltd. Şti.
e-ISSN: 2667-8837
Kapak Fotoğrafı: Bülent İŞLER, Nesrin AYDOĞAN İŞLER
Likya Bölgesi Alacadağ Çevresindeki Bizans Yerleşimleri
2017 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması
Not : Araştırma raporları, dil ve yazım açısından Dr. Candaş KESKİN tarafından
denetlenmiştir. Yayımlanan yazıların içeriğinden yazarları sorumludur.
40. ULUSLARARASI KAZI, ARAŞTIRMA VE ARKEOMETRİ
SEMPOZYUMU BİLİM KURULU
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE OF 40th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
OF EXCAVATIONS, SURVEYS AND ARCHAEOMETRY
Prof. Dr. Nurettin ARSLAN
(Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü Başkanı-Assos Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Rüstem ASLAN
(Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Troia Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Andreas SCHACHNER (Boğazköy-Hattuşaş Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Turan TAKAOĞLU
(Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Protohistorya
ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı Başkanı)
Doç. Dr. Olivier Can HENRY
(Labraunda Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Onur ÖZBEK
(Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Prehistorya
Anabilim Dalı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Timothy HARRISON
(Tell Tayınat Kazı Başkanı)
Doç. Dr. Göksel SAZCI
(Maydos-Kilisetepe Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Marcella FRANGIPANE (Aslantepe Kazı Başkanı)
Doç. Dr. Aslı Erim ÖZDOĞAN
(Çayönü Kazı Başkanı)
Prof. Dr. Michael HOFF
(Antiocheia Ad Cragum Kazı Başkanı)
Dr. Masako OMURA
(Yassıhöyük Kazı Başkanı)
ULUSLARARASI KAZI, ARAŞTIRMA VE ARKEOMETRİ
SEMPOZYUMU YAYIN KURALLARI
Göndereceğiniz bildiri metinlerinin aşağıda belirtilen kurallara uygun olarak gönderilmesi, kitabın zamanında basımı ve kaliteli bir yayın hazırlanması açısından önem
taşımaktadır. Bildirilerin yazımında kitaptaki sayfa düzeni esas alınarak;
* Yazıların A4 kağıda, üstten 5.5 cm. alttan 5 cm. soldan 4.5 cm. sağdan 3 cm. lik
bir boşluk bırakılarak, 10 punto ile, bir satır aralığı olacak şekilde, Times New
Roman fontu ile en fazla 10 sayfa yazılmalı,
* Başlık 14 punto, büyük harf ve bold olacak şekilde yazılmalı,
* Bildiri sahiplerinin isimleri başlığın altında, sağ üstte yer almalı, alt alta sıralanmalı ve unvan kullanılmamalı,
* Metinde ana başlıklar büyük harflerle ve italik, alt başlıklar, baş harfleri büyük
ve italik olarak yazılmalı,
* Metin içinde geçen yabancı sözcük ve terimler, örneğin “in-situ” italik olarak
yazılmalı,
* Metin içinde Milattan Önce gibi çok alışılagelmiş kısaltmalar dışında kısaltma kullanılmamalı, Milattan Önce ve sonra kısaltması: M.Ö., M.S. Erken Tunç
Çağı: ETÇ olarak kullanılmalıdır.
* Bölge adlarının ilk harfleri, aynı şekilde yer, coğrafya ve kurum adlarının ilk
harfleri büyük yazılmalıdır. Örneğin: Doğu Anadolu, Yakın Doğu, Avrupa,
Akdeniz Bölgesi, Dicle Nehri, Ankara Üniversitesi, Türk Tarih Kurumu gibi.
* Ölçü ve ağırlıklar m. cm. mm. lt. gr. şeklinde yazılmalı,
* Dipnotlar metnin altında ve metin içinde numaraları belirtilerek, 8 puntoda
yazılmalı,
* Dipnot ve kaynakçada (bibliyografya) kitap ve dergi isimleri italik yazılmalı,
* Harita, çizim ve resimler 15 adetten fazla olmamalı, fotoğraflar JPG veya TlFF
olarak gönderilmeli, gönderilen resimlerin çözünürlüğünün en az 300 pixel/
ınch olmalı,
* Çizimlere (Çizim: 1), resimlere (Resim: 1), haritalara (Harita: 1) olarak alt yazı
yazılmalı ve kesinlikle levha sistemi kullanılmamalı,
* Yayım için telif anlaşması gerektiren Googleearth gibi görseller kullanılmamalı,
* Bildirilere, ilk sayfanın altında, dipnotlardan önce bütün yazarların mutlaka
isim, unvan, e-mail ve yazışma adresi yazılmalıdır.
Yayınlanacak bildiri sayışının artması, kitapların zamanında basımını güçleştirdiğinden, bildirilerinizin sempozyum sırasında teslim edilmesi ya da en geç 1 Ağustos
tarihine kadar, yayinlar@kulturturizm.gov.tr e-mail adresine gönderilmesi gerekmektedir.
Yayın kurallarına uymayan ve geç gönderilen bildiriler kesinlikle yayınlanmayacaktır.
PUBLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
The papers presented in the International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and
Archaeometry will be published as before.
In order to complete a high-quality print in time, we kindly request you to send the
paper texts in the format specified below:
1. Texts should be written in 10 pages on A4 paper, with Times New Roman and
10 type size within a space of 13.5x19 cm. Line spacing should be 10 points.
2. Heading should be written in bold with 14 typesize and with 14 points of line
space. Main headings should be written with capitals, sub-headings with lower
letters. Both types of headings should be written in italics.
3. Footnotes should be placed at the bottom of the pages, with their numbers indicated in the text. Footnote texts should be written with 8 type size and line
space of 8 points.
4. Book and periodical titles in the footnotes and bibliography should be written
in italics.
5. Total number of drawings and photos should not exceed 15. Photos should be
either in JPG or TIFF format with at least 300 dpi solution and sent in a separate
file.
6. Captions should be added to drawings (Drawing: ………), photos (Photo:
………) and maps (Map: ………). Plate system should not be used.
7. Authors must indicate their names, titles and contact information in their papers.
8. Digital text of the paper should be added to the print-out and both texts should
be identical. Otherwise the digital version will be considered default.
As sudden accumulation of papers makes it difficult to complete printing in time,
papers should either be submitted during the symposium or sent to yayinlar@kulturturizm.gov.tr until the 1st of August.
The papers that fail to comply with those instructions or that are sent after the
deadline will not be published on no account.
İÇİNDEKİLER
Erdoğan ASLAN, Yusuf KILIÇ, Uğurcan ORHAN
Kekova Adası Arkeolojik Yüzey/Sualtı Araştırması 2017 ......................................1
Erkan FİDAN, Murat TÜRKTEKİ, Sinem TÜRKTEKİ, Michele MASSA,
Umay OĞUZHANOĞLU AKAY, Sezer SEÇER FİDAN, Murat AFŞAR
Eskişehir ve Kütahya İlleri Tarih Öncesi Dönem Yüzey Araştırmaları (EKAR)
2017 Yılı Çalışmalarıı ........................................................................................21
Eylem ÖZDOĞAN
Manyas Gölü Doğu Kesim Neolitik Dönem Araştırmaları ....................................41
Stefan FEUSER, Eric LAUFER, Bernhard LUDWIG, Felix PIRSON
2017 Yılında Pergamon’un Yakın Çevresinde Gerçekleştirilen
Yüzey Araştırmaları Raporu ..............................................................................53
Fikret ÖZCAN, Nihal ÇEVİK, Eser YAYAN
Kuzey Pısıdıa Yüzey Araştırması 2017 ...............................................................73
Gökhan COŞKUN
Lebedos ve Territoryumu Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması, 2017 ...........................89
Günder VARİNLİOĞLU
Boğsak Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması (Boga) 2017 Sezonu:
Dana Adası’nda Taş Ocakları ve Yapı Endüstrisi...............................................109
Güner SAĞIR
Kars İli ve Çevresinde Yer Alan Ortaçağ Ermeni Kiliseleri (Ani Hariç)
Yüzey Araştırması 2017 Yılı Çalışmaları ..........................................................125
Hacer SANCAKTAR, Rahşan TAMSÜ POLAT, Yusuf POLAT,
M. Bülent ŞENOCAK, Ayça DOKUZBOY, Kudret SEZGİN
Yozgat İli ve İlçeleri Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması:
2017 Yılı Çalışmaları .......................................................................................141
Hamdi ŞAHİN, Aşkım ÖZDİZBAY, İpek DAĞLI DİNÇER
Dağlık Kilikia Yerleşim Tarihi ve Epigrafya Araştırmaları 2017 .........................165
Harun OY
Uşak İli ve İlçeleri İlk Tunç Çağı Araştırmaları
2016 ve 2017 Yılı Çalışmaları..........................................................................181
VII
Hatice KALKAN
Hypaipa Antik Kenti ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırması-2017 .................................205
Hatice PAMİR, Ayşe BELGİN HENRY, Canan KARATAŞ YÜKSEL
Antakya, Altınözü, Yayladağı: Kuseyr Yaylası Yüzey Araştırması 2017 .............215
Mehmet IŞIKLI, Serkan GÜNDÜZ, Hazal OCAK
Ayanis Kalesi Sahilinde Su Altı Çalışmalarına Dair Ön Rapor ............................235
Hüseyin METİN, Salih SOSLU
Kremna ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırması 2017.....................................................243
Hüseyin Sami ÖZTÜRK, E. Demirhan ÖZTÜRK
Nikaia (Bithynia) Egemenlik Alanı Epigrafik-Tarihi Coğrafi
Yüzey Araştırması Çalışmaları – 2017 .............................................................255
İbrahim KUNT
Konya Hacıfettah Mezarlığında Bulunan Mezar Taşları .....................................263
İlker IŞIK, Orkun SARP, M. Naim ERDEM
2017 Yılı Konya İli, Karatay ve Altınekin İlçeleri, Bozdağ Milli Parkı
Doğu ve Kuzey Kesimi Yüzey Araştırması ........................................................275
Hayat ERKANAL, İrfan TUĞCU, Vasıf ŞAHOĞLU, Joseph Ian BOYCE,
Michaela REİNFELD, Yeşim ALKAN, Nicholas RIDDICK
Liman Tepe 2017 Yılı Su Altı Çalışmaları .........................................................293
İrfan Deniz YAMAN, Yavuz AYDIN, Iraz Aslı YAMAN,
Canberk KAN
Aksaray İli Paleolitik Çağ Yüzey Araştırması (2017) ........................................309
İrfan YILDIZ, Cemal ÇİĞ, Zulküf YARİŞ,
Özgür MİNTEŞ, Dursun YILDIZ
Diyarbakır İli ve İlçeleri Ortaçağ ve Sonrasına Ait Mimari ve
Sanat Eserlerinin İncelenmesi Yüzey Araştırması “Çüngüş İlçesi” ......................321
İsmail BAYKARA, Berkay DİNÇER, Serkan ŞAHİN
Derya BAYKARA, Esin ÜNAL, Birkan GÜLSEVEN
2017 Yılı Van İli Neojen ve Pleistosen Dönemleri Yüzey Araştırması ................343
VIII
Jeroen POBLOME, Ralf VANdAM, Dries dAEMS
Patrick T. WILLETT, Yasemin ZENGER
The 2017 Sagalassos Survey Research ...........................................................355
Kadriye ÖZÇELİK, İhsan ÇİÇEK, Necla TÜRKOĞLU,
Hande BULUT, Esra TUNÇEL, Eşref ERBİL
Denizli İli Prehistorik Dönem Yüzey Araştırması, 2017 ....................................377
Makbule EKİCİ, Timur DEMİR, Memik KERECİ,
Uğur SANCAK
Sacır Vadisi ve Çevresi Yerleşim Sistemleri Gaziantep İli Oğuzeli İlçesi
Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması 2016-2017 Yılı Çalışmaları ................................391
Maria ANDALORO
Painting On Rock-Hewn Settlements in Cappadocia: Knowledge,
Preservation and Enhancement (2017 Campaign) ............................................407
Mehmet Ali YILMAZ
Uşak Protohistorik Dönem Yüzey Araştırmaları Projesi (UPDAP)
2017 Yılı Sonuçları (İlk Sezon) .........................................................................425
Mehmet EKİZ, Şükrü DURSUN, Necla DURSUN,
Zafer KORKMAZ
2017 Yılı Niğde İli ve İlçeleri Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması ..............................453
Mehmet ÖZHANLI, Hakan ALPASLAN, Ersin ÖZEN,
Ali GÜNDOĞAN, Fatih HURATA
Isparta İli Yalvaç, Gelendost ve Şarkikaraağaç İlçeleri
Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması 2017 .................................................................477
Mehmet SAĞIR, İsmail ÖZER, İsmail BAYKARA,
Seçil SAĞIR, Serkan ŞAHİN, Sibel ÖNAL, Ayşegül ÖZDEMİR
2017 Yılı Ankara İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması .............................................491
Meral ORTAÇ
2017 Yılı Bolu İli Seben ve Merkez İlçeleri Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması ..........503
Mesut DÜNDAR, Yusuf ACIOĞLU, Oğuz KOÇYİĞİT
Ortaçağ’dan Günümüze Balıkesir İli Yüzey Araştırması
2017 Yılı Çalışmaları .......................................................................................523
IX
THE 2017 SAGALASSOS SURVEY RESEARCH
Jeroen POBLOME*
Ralf VANDAM
Dries DAEMS
Patrick T. WILLETT
Yasemin ZENGER
Ralf Vandam, Patrick T. Willett, Yasemin Zenger and Jeroen Poblome
The Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project has a long history of archaeological survey research.. Since 1993, the surveys have tried to contribute to the project’s main aim of documenting the long-term development of
human-environmental interactions in the study region. From 1993 to 1998 the
entire study area, approx. 1200 km2, was investigated by an extensive survey1 to acquire the first insights into the archaeology of the study region and
to build up a reference framework for future work. From 1999 onwards the
project initiated intensive survey programmes to complement the extensive
survey results. Firstly the intensive survey focused on the town2 of Sagalassos
*
1
2
Prof. Dr. Jeroen POBLOME, Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project, Blijde Inkomststraat
21/3314, 3000 Leuven, BELGIUM.; This research was supported by the Belgian Programme
on Interuniversity Poles of Attraction, the Research Fund of the University of Leuven, and the
Research Foundation Flanders. The archaeological survey team consisted of Jeroen Poblome,
Ralf VANDAM, Patrick T. WİLLETT, Heather ROSCH, Jana ANVARI, Leslie ENGELS, Ward
DECRAMER, Babette Jacobs and Nazlı DENİZ MEREY. We would like to thank the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey, its General Directorate of Culture and Museums
(Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü), and its annual representative, Yasemin ZENGER (Burdur Museum) for permission to do the research and the much-appreciated help during
the fieldwork.
Waelkens 1995; Waelkens et. al. 1997; Waelkens et al. 2000; Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003
Martens et al. 2012
355
and its suburban areas3 to document the occupation history and spatial distribution of the site in detail. The focus of the intensive survey shifted in 2008
to more peripheral parts of the study area, like the Bereket valley4 and the
Burdur Plain5, to explore the nature and scope of the contacts between these
remote areas and the Sagalassos area.
In the summer of 2016, the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project initiated a new archaeological survey programme in the Dereköy Highlands, 5
km eastwards of Sagalassos. With this survey we want to focus our research
on previously under-explored landscape units in the highland reaches of our
study area. By doing so we want to investigate when and how communities
operated in these landscapes and to test to what extent our current patterns in
occupation history (based on intensive lowland survey in intermountainous
plains and valleys and extensive surveys) in the region hold up. We wish to
answer the question of how these areas were integrated within the larger socio-economic system and how this may have changed through time. The 2016
survey produced an extensive amount of new information on the settlement
patterns and human activities of communities that inhabited marginal landscapes in the past6. Especially Late Antique (AD 300-700), Byzantine (AD 7001100) and Late Ottoman (AD 1700 onwards) remains were particular wellrepresented in this area but also earlier materials have been found as well7.
The survey clearly demonstrated that the Dereköy Highlands have a rich
history and great archaeological potential. Therefore, we aimed to continue
our research in this region. By exploring new lands in this area in 2017 we
want to test and validate the observed patterns of habitation and human activities from the 2016 campaign. In total five areas were selected to conduct
our survey research around the modern villages of Dereköy, Hisar, Mamak,
and Yumrutaş (Fig. 1). These research areas were chosen as they complement
the 2016 surveyed areas. Furthermore, they comprised different landscape
units that represent the area as a whole.
3
4
5
6
7
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2009
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011; Kaptijn et al. 2013
Kaptijn et al. 2012, Vandam et al. 2013
Vandam et al. 2017
Vandam et al. 2017
356
A. Survey methodology
The survey was carried out in a similar way as in 2016 (Fig. 2). Field walkers were spaced apart every 20m and survey tracts 50m in length and 1m
wide, in which they collected all manmade artefacts. If the visibility and accessibility of the selected fields were limited, a two-stage survey method was
implemented to ensure the intensive exploration of these areas with undulating transects and grids.8 Sampling all various landscape units present in the
Dereköy-Hisar area was attempted: valleys, uplands, hill spurs, hills, and isolated plateaus. By doing so we aimed to get a complete transect of the entire
area. In addition, based on our ongoing results in the field, we selected new
zones during the campaign and explored locations that were made known to
us by local shepherds. All investigated fields were measured by a GPS device
and located on available online aerial photographs. The survey, including the
material processing, lasted for seven weeks and took place between the 9th of
July and 24th of August 2017. In total the survey was carried out by a team of
eight archaeologists.
B. Survey results
During the 2017 campaign the archaeological survey team was able to investigate a total of 171 fields in the research area. This comprised an area of
2.25 km2 in which we discovered (or in some cases restudied) 36 sites (Fig. 3),
from various time periods and of different natures. In terms of numbers, the
survey results translate to 8623 sherds collected, 5401 tiles counted, and 1625
lithic artefacts collected. These numbers correspond largely with the ones
from last year’s survey. For instance, the average collected sherds per plot of
50 m2 was 3.8 this year, which is just slightly more than the 3.4 from last year.
The number of identified lithic artefacts, on the other the hand, is notably
higher. Similar to last year, the best represented periods in our survey were
the Late Antique, Byzantine, and Ottoman, but sites dating to Prehistory, Iron
Age, and Imperial Roman times have also been identified in the field.
8
For more information see Vandam et al. 2017.
357
Like last year, Middle Palaeolithic Levallois artefacts (150 000 – 45 000
BCE) have been identified during the survey (Fig. 4). However, no large concentrations were found from this period (in contrast to last year9), but at Field
287 and Field 190 small scatters of these artefacts were documented. Next to
these clusters we can also attest several isolated Middle Palaeolithic finds in
the landscape, both in the valleys as well as in the highlands. In addition to
the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, the majority of the lithic artefacts collected
during the 2017 survey could typologically be dated to the later phases of
Prehistory. The scant number of diagnostic lithic artefacts, however, makes
it hard to determine their exact dating or nature. Preliminarily, it can be concluded that all of them seem to have materials from different periods, ranging
from: the (final) Upper Palaeolithic to the Early/Middle Holocene. In total,
two major lithic artefact clusters (Field 189-190-192 and Field 281-282) were
found, alongside two smaller concentrations where we also found prehistoric
Chalcolithic pottery: Field 260 and Field 198 (see below). These lithic artefacts
at the Chalcolithic sites were also identified as typologically different (i.e.
presence of pressure blades) from the older artefacts that we found throughout the survey. In general, the lithics were mainly knapped from reddish or
greenish chert and white quartz, but at Field 189-190-192 a significant portion
of obsidian flakes was also found.
Striking is the fact that our survey did not pick up any clear Neolithic–
Early Chalcolithic (6500-5500 BCE) pottery concentrations in our research
area. In this way, we confirmed the observed pattern of the 2016 survey. This
outcome suggests that mainly the fertile plain areas were of interest for early
farmers. However, it must be stressed that this does not imply that the highland landscapes were entirely avoided then. In some of the above mentioned
lithic artefact clusters we found artefacts with some Neolithic traits. Unfortunately, the material is not diagnostic enough to make firm conclusions, but
it is possible that we can attest materials from the poorly represented period
between 10 000 – 6500 BCE. Similar to last year, we identified several later prehistoric (approx. 4500 – 3000 BCE) pottery scatters: Field 189-191,197-356-357,
234, 260, 267-268, 281-282, 324-325, 345-351. Some of them were multi-period
9
Vandam et al. 2017.
358
in nature where only a small number of prehistoric sherds were identified,
such as at Field 260, Field 324-325 and Field 345-351. Currently we have dated
the prehistoric pottery to the Chalcolithic in general as it is difficult to determine precisely due to the limited number of diagnostic sherds at the survey
sites and their poor preservation. In addition there is a lack of Chalcolithic
reference sites in the Burdur Region besides Kuruçay Höyük10, which covers
only the last part of this period. The prehistoric pottery is greyish in colour,
occasionally burnished and has a very coarse ill-sorted grit-tempered fabric
(Fig. 5). It posses both similarities and differences to the Kuruçay pottery. For
example we are lacking characteristic shapes like the typical Kuruçay cups
or flaring bowls, but the commonly found ledge handles of storage jars at
Kuruçay are present. Noteworthy is that at some of the sites, grinding stones
were identified which suggests a rather substantial and sedentary settlement
in a mountainous landscape.
In small numbers, Archaic (800-546 BCE), Achaemenid (546-333 BCE), and
Helenistic (333-25 BCE) materials were recovered. Before our survey, the Archaic period was not well-known in this part of the Sagalassos study area, but
last year’s survey identified two hilltop sites from this period. A similar hilltop settlement was identified during this campaign at Field 284 in the uplands
at Yazır. Based on the pottery, the site seemed to have been multi-period with
an Archaic and Achaemenid-Early Helenistic occupation phase, and more
substantial Byzantine and Ottoman phases. Potentially related to the Archaic
occupation at this hilltop site were 9 large round (6-12 m. diameter) fieldstone
heaps on the southeast slope of the hill. At other Archaic sites within the Sagalassos territory, similar features have been documented and interpreted as
burial mounds. In general there was a slight increase in the number of Helenistic sherds compared to the 2016 campaign. Most of the Helenistic sherds
were found at Roman-Byzantine sites (see below), which might indicate an
earlier occupation phase at these sites. After two seasons of archaeological
surveys it has become clear that our research area has only limited occupation during the Archaic up till the Helenistic periods, which contrast with
other areas of the Sagalassos study area11 and especially considering the de10 Duru 1996.
11 Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003
359
velopments of Düzen Tepe and Sagalassos located less than 10 km away.12
This pattern continues for the succeeding Roman Imperial Period (25 BCE
– AD 300) which contrasts sharply with the Late Antique (AD 300-700) and
Byzantine (AD 700-1100) periods, which confirms the observations from last
year. Only at a few sites do we have indications of an occupation during the
Roman imperial period: Field 190, Field 254, Field 313 and especially at Düldül Yüzü: Field 228. The influx of human activity for the succeeding periods
supports our hypothesis of an overall increase in population and economic
specialization (e.g. local amphora production see Fig. 6, and occurrence of
presses at sites) during Late Antiquity, which remained stable and may even
have increased further during the Byzantine period. In total, 1317 Late Antique sherds and 1160 Byzantine sherds were found in the 2017 survey, which
makes their overall proportions within the entire collected assemblage fairly
higher compared to last year. Similar to the 2016 survey results, the finds from
both periods cluster well together. None of the sites, however, were restricted
to a certain landscape unit, and instead occurred in different settings in both
lowlands and highlands.
The newly discovered Late Antique and Byzantine sites have a diverse
nature, from substantial sites like Düldül Yüzü (see below) to villages and isolated farms. Larger Late Antique and mainly Byzantine concentrations have
been found at Bakırlı: Field 333 and Manastır: Field 299-Field 313. At the latter
we identified a wide variety of sites, such as wells, a church, potential cemetery, ceramic kiln, and building material concentrations. The large Byzantine
site, Field 128, discovered last year, was also further contextualized during
the 2017 survey, which illustrated that this site was particularly extensive in
size (500 x 400m) and that a large amount of metal production waste and a
well formed part of the site. Near the modern village of Yazir, a small Late
Antique – Byzantine site has been found at field 254 where we documented
numerous illegal excavation pits. One of the pits had in situ remains of a mosaic floor in all sides of the profile (Fig. 7). The mosaic was located about 50
cm under the topsoil. A collapse layer of 20 cm, in which many tile fragments
were identified, was located above the floor. The floor itself was made out of
12 Daems 2018.
360
limestone tesserae pieces that were laid in a thin mortar layer and was built
on a fieldstone foundation (up to 15 cm under the mosaic). The fact that no
clear structures or orientation was documented at Field 254 indicates that we
are most likely dealing with a country estate rather than a church. In addition
to the settlements, we discovered building material concentrations, located at
strategic locations with excellent visibilities (Field 190 and 325-326).
One of the most remarkable finds of the 2017 campaign was made at an
already identified site, locally known as Düldül Yüzü (Fig. 3), located 2 km
to the north of the present-day village of Yazır and about 8 km to the east of
Sagalassos. In 1993, the Sagalassos extensive survey research team identified
a large structure on top of the hill at Düldül Yüzü (1560 m asl.), which was
interpreted as a sanctuary erected in Doric architecture13. In 2012, when we
conducted exploratory surveys in the foothills surrounding the Akdağ, this
structure was revisited after which it was reinterpreted as a church. As part
of our 2017 survey on marginal landscapes, we returned to the area to fully
investigate the hill. This survey revealed that the structure on top of the hill is
a large tripartite basilica: inner length of 19.50 m and an inner width of 12.20
m (west) to 12.80 m (east). It had probably served as the main church for the
population of the rural settlement at Düldül Yüzü which we identified on the
southern slopes below the basilica. The settlement was built on terraces and is
currently overgrown by pine trees that have been planted during the last decades. Due to this limited visibility and to time restrictions, a detailed survey
of the entire area was not feasible but we estimate that the site was at least 10
ha. Notable was the evidence of monumentality discovered there, such as a
substantial terrace wall with carved ashlar blocks (Fig. 8), a Doric capital, and
an honorary monument. Furthermore, proof of agricultural (counter weight
press) and metal production (metal slags) have been found. The (in general)
rich material culture indicates a dating between 5th and 10th century AD, with
potential earlier Helenistic and Roman imperial occupation phases. Taking
the material culture, the monumental architecture, the site size and the various attested functions into consideration, we argue that we are dealing with a
Roman-Byzantine secondary centre site. Possibly related to the occupation at
13 Waelkens 1995: 12.
361
Düldül Yüzü are the remains of a potential funerary chapel (Field 215), 100 m
northwards of the site. For more information on this site, one is referred to an
article on this site specifically14.
Lastly, the best represented period of the 2017 survey was the Late Ottoman period (1700 CE onwards), as almost 1/4 of the dated sherds can be
attributed to this period. Considering the results from 2016 we can conclude
that the entire extent of the Dereköy-Hisar survey area is littered with artefacts from this period. At most of the sites of earlier periods identified in the
survey, there were Late Ottoman materials observed as well. The materials
were found both in the high- and the lowlands, but the many animal pens, cisterns/wells and shepherds’ structures in the field suggest that the highlands
were intensively used for pastoral activities: e.g. Field 276, Field 281-284, Field
286 and Field 299. In the valleys, on the other hand, we have good indications
of small-scaled settlements like hamlets: Field 260-264, Field 128-319, Field
324-326, Field 333 and Field 345-349.
C. Conclusion
The 2017 Sagalassos Survey in the Dereköy-Hisar area produced an extensive amount of data on the settlement patterns and human activities of communities that operated in more “marginal” landscapes during the past. We
were able to validate the observed patterns from last year to a great extent and
provide new insights as well. The new survey programme of the Sagalassos
Archaeological Research Project illustrates the importance of differentiation
and contextualization of archaeological survey research in a very heterogeneous region like the Taurus Mountains. For many years the main focus of
our survey research was on intermountain valleys and plain areas, but by relocating our research area towards the highlands it became clear that these areas have great archaeological potential as well. From early periods onwards,
we have evidence that the Dereköy Highlands were actively used. Notable is
that the highlands were used for many different activities through the years.
Therefore, we also identified a wide range in types of sites in these areas,
14 Vandam et al. 2018
362
ranging from Palaeolithic activity sites to Late Ottoman pastoral structures.
From the survey, however, it became clear that human presence in these areas
was not continuous. During several periods, like the Late Antique, Byzantine,
and Late Ottoman period a clear influx of human activity can be observed
while for other periods no archaeological remains were documented at all.
2. MATERIAL STUDIES ON IRON AGE TO HELENISTIC POTTERY
FROM THE STUDY REGION OF SAGALASSOS
Dries Daems and Jeroen Poblome
The material studies programme of the 2017 campaign focused on examining the pottery material from the Iron Age to mid Helenistic periods (9th –
2nd centuries BCE), which had so far remained comparatively underexposed.
This campaign, we wanted to address this deficiency by examining a selection
of pottery material collected from a number of sites throughout the study region of the Sagalassos Project. Two main goals were identified: First, to assess
the overall nature of Iron Age communities and material culture in light of
subsequent dynamics of community formation and developments during the
Achaemenid and Helenistic periods. Secondly, we wished to study the development of Sagalassos as a primary centre against this existing background of
settlement dynamics.
The material derived from intensive and extensive archaeological survey
campaigns, which were re-examined in 2014 by prof. Jeroen Poblome and dr.
Eva Kaptijn to provide an overall chronological impression of diachronic settlement patterns in the area. The majority of the material eventually included
in the dataset was selected from ten sites (Fig. 9) which were most likely to
yield significant amounts of material for the period from Iron Age to Helenistic times: Belören (Keraia in ancient times), Bereket, Çatal Pınar, Düver
Ada, Hisar, Aykırıkça, Kayışkale, Kepez Kalesi, Kökez Kale, and Seydiköy. Of
these ten, six (Bereket, Çatal Pınar, Hisar, Aykırıkça, Kayışkale, Kökez Kale)
were studied through intensive surveys, whereas four (Belören, Düver Ada,
Kepez Kalesi, Seydiköy) were studied only through extensive surveys. From
these sites, we selected and identified 676 sherds (96 dated to the Iron Age,
363
497 Achaemenid, and 83 late Achaemenid/early Helenistic), of which 235
(189 rim fragments, 17 handles, and 29 bases) were illustrated, photographed
and measured.
A. Methodology
The main methodological component of this research entails macroscopic
analysis of the techno-productive component of material culture, based on
fabric and morphological properties. These procedures are aimed to uncover
as much information as possible regarding ways of doing in communities of
practices, technical skills and socio-cultural choices imbued in the material.
Distinct classes of objects are described through a consistent patterning of a
polythetic set of attributes.
Categorisations of material culture are then used to elucidate patterns of
inter-community dynamics. In particular, material produced at Sagalassos
can be used to highlight patterns of interaction with neighbouring sites during the formative stages of its transformation into a primary centre on this
sub-regional scale.
B. Results
An exploratory fabric analysis of the common ware pottery from Kayışkale
and Seydiköy, showed that the general nature of most of the material seemed
to fall in the same overall bracket of material culture production as observed
for the late Achaemenid and early Helenistic pottery of Düzen Tepe15. In both
cases, the majority of the material constituted of common wares fabrics, supplemented with a smaller, but significant, amount of buff tableware.
The common wares of Kayışkale and Seydiköy had a rough surface feel,
with colour variations including black, grey, dark brown, light brown, orange, red, and buff colour. Colour variations were not considered a decisive
factor in defining fabric groups, as similar compositional properties seem to
15 Braekmans et al. 2017; Daems et al. 2017.
364
recur across different colour variations. We therefore focused mainly on the
composition of the matrix and inclusions in the break. Based on these elements, three general trajectories of technological production properties could
be identified. 1) A very rough fabric group with an abundant amount of inclusions; 2) a medium rough fabric group with moderate amounts of inclusions; and 3) a smooth fabric group with few inclusions, which can be further
subdivided in a very smooth paste group with no visible granulation but occasional large inclusions and huge elongated voids, and a smooth fabric with
fine-grained matrix and very small inclusions. Among these general production trajectories, six distinct fabrics could be systematically distinguished (Fig.
10). However, given the generic nature and relatively low amount of material,
it was decided to retain in the first place the level of the three general production trajectories.
A preliminary study on the selected diagnostics indicated that these three
general trajectories could be observed on most other sites as well, albeit with
some compositional variation pertaining to the usage of local raw materials.
It must be noted, however, that it is quite hard to draw any strong conclusions on the chronology and dating of pottery material, based on fabric paste
properties alone. At this point, to define the chronological horizons of a specific body of material, we are forced to fall back on a general appreciation of
the context and the association of common wares with more diagnostic fine
fabrics. It was therefore decided to focus on description of typological variety,
followed by an intra-site comparison. This goal was met by constructing a
typology of Iron Age and Achaemenid period material. An overview of the
typological classification for material selected from four sites dated to these
periods (Kökez Kale, Seydiköy, Kayışkale and Kepez Kalesi), along with the
occurrence of the types at each of these sites, can be found in table 1. Additionally, surface treatment and decoration patterns were included as diagnostic elements (Fig. 11).
The material of Kökez Kale was clearly represented most extensively
compared to the other sites and showed the largest amount of variability as
well. The site was inhabited from the 9/8th – 2nd centuries BCE, displaying
a variety of material attributable to the Iron Age, and Archaic, Achaemenid
365
and Helenistic periods. The majority of the material however could clearly
be attributed to one specific chronological phase of the settlement’s occupational history. Upon closer typological analysis, this main component was
considered to partially overlap with that of Düzen Tepe (the main phase of
occupation of which was attributed to the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE) and
possibly slightly predating it. As a result, it was concluded that this material
could be preliminarily placed within the general chronological bracket of the
5th to 4th centuries BCE, or the (early) Achaemenid period. Confirmation of
this tentative date will need to be sought in parallels derived from scholarly
literature.
For the other sites, similar observations have been made. Kayışkale clearly
covered a comparable chronological window to that of Kökez Kale (9/8th
to 2nd centuries BCE), with a majority of material again attributable to this
tentative chronological bracket of 5th to 4th centuries BCE. For Seydiköy, a
slightly more restricted chronological span was observed, with little indication for the earlier material from 9/8th and 7th centuries BCE but mostly 6th
to 4th century BCE material. Finally, Kepez Kalesi showed little indications
of the earliest Iron Age/Archaic age material (a handful of exceptions notwithstanding), but clearly took off from the 5th century BCE onwards and
continued to be inhabited until the 1st century CE.
A next objective was to compare settlement patterns throughout different periods of time. Whereas the sites described so far represented an earlier
phase of settlement configuration in different niches throughout the study
region mainly centred on easily defendable hill-top settlements, subsequent
developments saw a shift in focus towards settlements located on the lower
slopes of these hills or even into the valleys. For Kökez Kale, a shift towards
the settlement of Bereket has been observed, whereas habitation at Kayışkale
shifted towards Çatal Pınar, and finally, Seydiköy was at some point superseded by nearby Belören. Kepez Kalesi on the other hand, as mentioned, continued to be inhabited until the early Roman Imperial period. It would therefore be interesting to investigate the chronological extent of these ‘successor’
communities as well, and compare the outer tails of habitation to those of the
earlier settlements, in order to assess to what extent both overlapped or not.
366
The oldest pottery material collected from Belören could be attributed to
the same phase of 5th/4th centuries BCE highlighted earlier, including at
nearby Seydiköy, indicating that both settlements must at this time have coexisted. If anything, this suggests that the transition from Seydiköy to Belören,
in case such a scenario took place, was to some extent a gradual one, rather
than the result of an abrupt event. Out of the remaining pottery from Belören,
a small component was identified as Helenistic material that could be attributed to the 2nd century BCE. Interestingly, of this material, 5 sherds could be
identified with a fair amount of certainty to have originated from Sagalassos,
whereas 15 sherds were of distinctly non-Sagalassos origin (1 to 3 ratio). Of
the Roman imperial material found at Belören, however, all fragments could
be clearly attributed to belonging to the Sagalassos-based SRSW production.
Without building overly strong conclusions on such a limited body of material, this might indicate that Sagalassos had little intensive contacts with this
southern region during the Helenistic period, confirming the current interpretation that these lands were only added to the territory of Sagalassos during
the early 1st century CE. If we move slightly towards the northwest, at Kepez
Kalesi, a different picture emerges as we see that the Sagalassos versus nonSagalassos material equals a 3 to 1 ratio (n=47 vs. n=17). It can therefore be
suggested that Kepez Kalesi maintained comparably closer contacts with Sagalassos, insofar as these contacts are translated into pottery assemblages. Due
to its location at the outskirts of the mountain range shielding the northern
side of the valleys surrounding modern-day Çeltikçi, the site might have constituted the most southern boundary of the Helenistic territory of Sagalassos.
Çatal Pınar, located within the same settlement system as Kayışkale,
showed a large chronological range, with a few fragments of its earliest material stretching all the way back to the 8th century BCE (however as these only
constituted two fragments, it should not be concluded that any habitation
was already in place at this time). Again a clear 5th-4th century BCE component of material culture was present, suggesting a clear overlap with nearby
Kayışkale. Although only a limited assemblage attributable to the Helenistic period was identified, this material could be attributed almost 50/50 to a
Sagalassos and non-Sagalassos point of origin (respectively 8 and 9 pieces)
367
therefore impeding any clear conclusions as to the extent of the territory of
Sagalassos in these parts at this time.
For the final valley system under consideration here, that of Kökez Kale
and Bereket, located towards the west of Kayışkale and Çatal Pınar, a clearer
picture emerges as at neither of these sites could any Sagalassos related material be observed. Bereket only originated from the 3rd century BCE onwards,
however, this material displayed a markedly different nature, both in fabrics and typological composition compared to Sagalassos. Instead, it might be
tentatively suggested that this community rather subscribed to a tradition of
material culture found in the more western Lysis valley, attested for example
at Düver and Kozluca. Further studies are needed to confirm this supposition.
It can therefore be suggested that these lands were not yet part of the territory of Sagalassos during the Helenistic period. It was only in the early 1st
century CE, with the emergence of the SRSW production that Sagalassos
starts to leave its mark on this part of the region. A similar image emerges
from the Düver material further to the west of lake Burdur, where here as well
Sagalassos enters the picture only in the 1st century CE. Interestingly, it is in
this general area south of Lake Burdur where the Roman general and consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso is said to have entered the territory of Sagalassos
in the aftermath of the battle of Magnesia (190 BCE) (Livy, 38.15-9; Polybius
21.36). These accounts would suggest Sagalassos’ territorial control had at this
time already expanded to include this area as well, however, no traces of this
expansion can at first sight be derived from the material record. Further research is needed if we are to match the archaeological and historical record
at this point. For now, it is not possible to make any conclusive statements
and we must accept the reality which often faces historical and archaeological
research, as different sources may offer different perspectives on historical
processes.
REFERENCES
BRAEKMANS, D., DEGRYSE, P., NEYT, B., WAELKENS, M. and POBLOME,
J. 2017. “Reconstructing Regional Trajectories: The Provenance and Distribution of Archaic to Helenistic Ceramics in Central Pisidia (South-West
Turkey)”. Archaeometry 59(3): 472-492.
368
DAEMS, D., BRAEKMANS, D. and POBLOME, J.. 2017. “Late Achaemenid
and Early Helenistic Pisidian Material Culture from Düzen Tepe (SW Anatolia)”. Herom 6(1): 11–47.
DAEMS, D. 2018 Dynamics of social complexity: Community formation beyond the origin of polis in South West Anatolia during the Archaic, Classical, and Helenistic periods. PhD Thesis, Univeristy of Leuven.
DURU, R. 1996. Kuruçay Höyük II: 1978-1988 kazılarının sonuçları geç kalkolitik
ve ilk tunç çağı yerleşmeleri, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları 44a. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
KAPTIJN, E., VANDAM, R. POBLOME, J. and WAELKENS, M. 2012. “Inhabiting the Plain of Burdur: Results from the 2010 and 2011 Sagalassos
Project Survey.” News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas
10:142-147.
MARTENS, F., MUšIč, B., POBLOME, J., and WAELKENS, M. 2012. “The
integrated urban survey at Sagalassos.” In Urban Landscape Survey in Italy
and the Mediterranean, edited by Frank Vermeulen, Gert-Jan Burgers, Simon Keay and Cristina Corsi, 84-93. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
VANDAM, R., TALLOEN, P., ZENGER Y., and POBLOME, J. 2018. “Düldül
Yüzü. The exploration of a secondary center in the territory of Sagalassos.”
News Bulletin on Archaeology from Mediterranean Anatolia 16.
VANDAM, R., KAPTIJN, E., POBLOME, J., and WAELKENS, M. 2013. “The
2012 archaeological survey of the Sagalassos Archaeological Survey Project.” News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 11:230-233.
VANDAM, R., WILLETT, P. T. and POBLOME, J. 2017. “Living on the Margins: First Results from the Dereköy Archaeological Survey of the Sagalassos Project in the Western Taurus Mountains.” In Archaeology of Anatolia
Vol II, edited by S.R. Steadman and G. McMahon. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing
VANHAVERBEKE, H., WAELKENS, M., JACOBS, I., LEFERE M., KAPTIJN,
E. and POBLOME, J. 2011. “The 2008 and 2009 survey season in territory of
Sagalassos.” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2010 28:139-153.
369
VANHAVERBEKE, H., POBLOME, J. and WAELKENS, M. 2009. “The archaeological intensive suburban survey near Sagalassos.” Araştırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı: Vol. 26 (3):173-175.
VANHAVERBEKE, H. and WAELKENS, M. 2003. The Chora of Sagalassos. The
Evolution of the Settlement Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times. Edited
by M. Waelkens, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology V. Turnhout:
Brepols.
WAELKENS, M. 1995. “The 1993 survey in the district south and east of Sagalassos.” In Sagalassos III. Report of the fourth Excavation Campaign of 1993,
edited by Marc Waelkens and Jeroen Poblome, 11-22. Leuven: Leuven
University Press.
WAELKENS, M., PAULISSEN, E., VANHAVERBEKE, H., ÖZTURK, İ., DE
CUPERE, B., EKINCI, H.A., VERMEERSCH, P.M., POBLOME, J, DEGEEST, R. 1997. “The 1994 and 1995 surveys in the territory of Sagalassos.”
In Sagalassos IV. Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1994
and 1995, edited by M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, 11-102. Leuven: Leuven
University Press.
WAELKENS, M., E. PAULISSEN, E., VANHAVERBEKE, H., REYNIERS, J.,
POBLOME, J., DEGEEST, R., VIAENE W. 2000. “The 1996 and 1997 surveys in the territory of Sagalassos.” In Sagalassos V. Report on the Survey
and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, edited by M. Waelkens and
L. Loots, 17-216. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
370
Fig. 1: The territory of Sagalassos in the Roman imperial period with the survey area located in
the eastern part near the villages of Dereköy and Hisar. Previous intensive survey areas
are also depicted.
Fig. 2: Applied survey methodology in the 2017 survey campaign. In addition to our tract
walking surveying method (a) we implemented an undulating transect walking (b) and
gridded survey (c) in areas with less visibility.
371
Fig. 3: Overview of the 2017 surveyed area in the Dereköy-Hisar region with the locations of the
newly identified sites, and site.
Fig. 4: Few Middle Palaeolithic artefacts attested
during the 2016-2017 survey in the Dereköy
Highlands. Note the different complexes that
we observed within the material.
372
Fig. 5: A selection of prehistoric pottery found at Field 198 in Dereköy
Fig. 6: Overview of the Late Roman amphora handles that have been collected at different Late
Antique sites during the Dereköy Highland survey.
373
Fig. 7: An Illegal excavated pit where an in-situ mosaic floor was discovered at Field 254 with
a detailed picture of the mosaic itself (north profile). Note the circular pattern within the
mosaic.
Fig. 8: The monumental terrace found 100m downwards of the
church site at Düldül Yüzü.
374
Fig. 9: Iron Age and Achaemenid sites in the study region of Sagalassos.
Fig. 10: Fabrics in the Iron Age material of Kayiş Kale (Upper row
left to right: A-B-C; lower row left to right: D-E-F).
Fig. 11: A selection of Middle Iron Age material from the study area
of Sagalassos
375
Type
A120
Description
Achaemenid bowl
Kökez
Seydiköy
Kayış
x
Kepez
x
B140
plain rim bowl/dish with flattened top
x
x
B150
plain rim bowl
x
x
x
x
B151
deep plain rim bowl
x
x
x
x
B170
Incurving rim bowl
x
x
x
x
C120
plain rim dish
x
x
x
x
C170
bowl or dish with rim rounded at outside
x
x
x
C171
bowl or dish with flattened and outside protruding
rim
x
x
x
C172
bowl or dish with flattened rim protruding both
inward and out
x
C260
upturned rim dish
x
C290
inwards turned rim dish
x
F120
container with straight rim flattened at top
x
x
x
x
x
x
container with outward protruding rim (regular/
undercut)
x
x
x
G100
closed storage vessel with rounded rim
x
x
x
G110
closed storage vessel with flattened rim
x
x
x
G120
closed storage vessel with flattened and thickened
rim
x
x
x
F150/1
x
H100/101
jars with plain everted rim (small/large)
x
x
x
x
H110/111
jars with thickened everted rim (small/large)
x
x
x
x
H102/112
jar with trefoil spout (small/large)
x
H120
jar with handle ending in rim
x
x
x
x
H130
plain folded rim jar
x
x
x
x
H131
thickened folded rim jar
x
x
x
x
H150
rounded rim jar
x
x
x
x
H160
flattened rim jar
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
H170
squared rim jar
x
x
H171
shifted blocked jar
x
x
H180
straight everted jar
x
x
H240
upward folded rim jar
x
x
H260
ledged rim jar
x
x
Q200
plain outturned rim cooking pot
Q210
cooking pot with outturned rim flattened at outside
x
Q250
collared rim cooking pot
x
Table 1: Attestation of types at major Iron Age and Achaemenid sites
376
x