Preliminary report on the 2018 excavation season at Uşaklı Höyük (Yozgat)

41 41. KAZI SONUÇLARI TOPLANTISI 1. CİLT 17-21 HAZİRAN 2019 DİYARBAKIR T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayın No: 3654/1 Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayın No: 187/1 YAYINA HAZIRLAYAN Dr. Adil ÖZME 17-21 Haziran 2019 tarihlerinde gerçekleştirilen 41. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu, Diyarbakır Dicle Üniversitesi’nin katkılarıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kapak ve Uygulama Başak Kitap e-ISSN:2667-8845 Kapak Fotoğrafı : Prof. Dr. Vecihi ÖZKAYA Körtik Tepe Kültürü Uygarlığın İlk Yetkin Deneyimi Not : Kazı raporları, dil ve yazım açısından Dr. Adil Özme tarafından denetlenmiştir. Yayımlanan yazıların içeriğinden yazarları sorumludur. Ankara 2020 41. ULUSLARARASI KAZI, ARAŞTIRMA VE ARKEOMETRİ SEMPOZYUMU BİLİM KURULU SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE OF 41TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF EXCAVATIONS, SURVEYS AND ARCHAEOMETRY Prof. Dr. Vecihi ÖZKAYA Dicle Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanı Prof. Dr. Celal ŞİMŞEK Laodikeia Kazı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Douglas BAIRD Boncuklu Höyük Kazı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Havva İŞKAN IŞIK Patara Kazı Başkanı Doç. Dr. Annalisa POLOSA Elaiussa Sebaste Kazısı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Mehmet ÖNAL Harran Kazı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Nicholas D. CAHILL Sardis Kazı Başkanı Doç. Dr. İrfan YILDIZ İçkale Artuklu Sarayı Kazı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Engelbert WINTER Doliche Kazı Başkanı Doç. Dr. Erhan ÖZTEPE Alexandria Troas Kazı Başkanı Prof. Dr. Marcella FRANGIPANE Aslantepe Kazı Başkanı Doç. Dr. Aytaç COŞKUN Zerzevan Kalesi 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@ktb.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@ktb.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 Abdulkadir ÖZDEMİR, Ziya KILINÇ, Yusuf AĞTAŞ Aşağı Kaleköy Barajı Projesi / Murat Tepe 2018 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı..................................1 Abuzer KIZIL, Taylan DOĞAN Euromos Kazısı 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ..............................................................................15 Adnan DİLER, Bekir ÖZER, Şahin GÜMÜŞ, Gözde ADIGÜZEL, Sevilay Zeynep YILDIZ Pedasa 2018 .................................................................................................................35 Ahmet Cem ERKMAN, Şakir Önder ÖZKURT Kurutlu Kazısı 2018........................................................................................................61 Ahmet ÇAYCI, Zekeriya ŞİMŞİR Gevale Kalesi 2018 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları..........................................................................67 Akın ERSOY Smyrna/İzmir, 2018 .......................................................................................................79 Ali BAŞ, Remzi DURAN, Şükrü DURSUN, Necla DURSUN, Rasim BAĞIRLI 2018 Yılı Keykubadiye Sarayı Kazısı ...............................................................................95 Ali BORAN, Razan AYKAÇ, Halil SÖZLÜ Silifke Kalesi 2018 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları .........................................................................113 Ali Yalçın TAVUKÇU, Akın TEMÜR, Zerrin AYDIN TAVUKÇU, Nisa YILMAZ ERKOVAN, Mesut CEYLAN, Sinem COŞKUN, Kasım EKER, Ayşe AVLİ Alabanda 2018 ............................................................................................................135 Yalçın KAMIŞ, Aliye ÖZTAN 2018 Yılı Acemhöyük Kazıları .......................................................................................147 Anacleto D’AGOSTINO, Valentina ORSI Preliminary Report On The 2018 Excavation Season At Uşaklı Höyük (Yozgat) ..............161 Annalisa POLOSA Elaiussa Sebaste 2018.................................................................................................173 Armağan ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ, Rıza TUNCEL, Şeyma ALAY 2018 Yılı Panaztepe Kazıları..........................................................................................187 ............................................................................................................... VII Aslı ÖZYAR, Elif ÜNLÜ, Türkan PİLAVCI Tarsus-Gözlükule Kazıları 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları .............................................................203 K. Aslıhan YENER, Murat AKAR, Müge BULU Aççana Höyük, Eski Alalah Kenti 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ..................................................217 Asuman BALDIRAN, Nizam ABAY Iasos Antik Kenti 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ..........................................................................227 Atilla ENGİN, Engin ÖZGEN, Macit AŞİR, Sabahattin EZER, Abdülhamit KAVAK, Aydoğan BOZKURT, Derya BOZKURT, Şenay DORUK ENGİN Oylum Höyük 2018 ......................................................................................................243 Aygün Ekin MERİÇ, Ali Kazım ÖZ, Nihal KARDORUK, Fatih Hakan KAYA, Nezihat KÖŞKLÜK KAYA İznik Roma Tiyatrosu 2018 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları ...................................265 Ayla SEVİM EROL, Alper Yener YAVUZ, Erhan TARHAN, Serdar MAYDA, Ahmet İhsan AYTEK Çilem SÖNMEZ SÖZER, Hakan MUTLU, Hülya ALÇİÇEK, Cihat ALÇİÇEK Çorakyerler Kazısı 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ........................................................................285 A. Tuba ÖKSE, Ayşin KONAK, Vehbi YURT Ambar Barajı – Ambar Höyük, Gre Filla ve Kendale Hecala – 2018 Kurtarma Kazıları .....299 Bahadır DUMAN Tripolis 2018 Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları..............................................................315 Bahattin ÇELİK, Celal ULUDAĞ 2017 ve 2018 Yılı Harbetsuvan Tepesi Kazı ve Temizlik Çalışması .................................337 V. Belgin DEMİRSAR ARLI İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ................................................................357 Bilal SÖĞÜT Stratonikeia ve Lagına 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ..................................................................373 Birol CAN, Şerif SÖYLER, Güler KEKLİK DÜNDAR Blaundos Antik Kenti 2018 Yılı (İlk Sezon) Çalışmaları ...................................................393 Bora UYSAL, Ali ÇİFÇİ Elbistan Karahöyük Kazısı 2018 ...................................................................................411 VIII ............................................................................................................ C. Brian ROSE, Ayşe GÜRSAN SALZMANN Gordion 2018 ..............................................................................................................423 Christopher H. ROOSEVELT, Tunç KANER, Christina LUKE Kaymakçı Arkeoloji Projesi: 2018 Yılı Kazı ve Araştırma Sonuçları .................................437 Christof BERNS, Julien ZURBACH Milet 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ............................................................................................461 Claire BARAT, Emine KÖKER GÖKÇE, Jean-François PİCHONNEAU, Vivien MATHE, Guillaume BRUNIAUX Porsuk-Zeyve Höyük 2018 Yılı Kazısı ............................................................................471 Coşkun ÖZGÜNEL, Davut KAPLAN, Tayyar GÜRDAL 2018 Yılı Gülpınar / Smintheion Kazıları (39.Yıl) ............................................................487 Çiler ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, Arkadiusz MARCINIAK, Yusuf BENLİ Çatalhöyük 2018 .........................................................................................................505 David SCHLOEN, Virginia R. HERRMANN, Tuna KALAYCI Zincirli Höyük Kazıları 2018 ..........................................................................................525 Mustafa N. TATBUL, D. Burcu ERCİYAS Komana Kazısının 10.Yılı 2018 Yılı Çalışmaları ..............................................................537 Deniz YAŞİN, Nedim DERVİŞOĞLU Tepebağ Höyük 2018 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları ....................................................................551 Aytaç COŞKUN Zerzevan Kalesi 2018 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları ....................................................................567 Aytaç COŞKUN Ambar 2018 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları (İlk Sezon).................................................................587 ................................................................................................................ IX PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE 2018 EXCAVATION SEASON AT UŞAKLI HÖYÜK (YOZGAT) Anacleto D’AGOSTINO Valentina ORSI* THE SITE In 2018 the eleventh season of work was carried out at Uşaklı Höyük, in the NorthCentral Anatolian plateau1. Uşaklı is located 20 km east of Yozgat, in a small valley bordered by hills of different altitude and crossed by two small streams, the larger of which is the Eğri Öz Dere that runs west to east. The site is ten hectares, of ovoid shape and can be seen from all the surrounding heights and from the bo om of the eastern part of the valley, over a relatively long distance. There is a central mound surrounded on its west, north and east sides by a ten-meter-high terrace with gently descending slopes; the difference in height between the terrace and the top of the mound with steeper slopes is eighteen meters. The results of the surface survey (2008-2012) and excavations (2013-2018) allow us to reconstruct the history of occupation, in * 1 Anacleto D’AGOSTINO, University of Pisa, Pisa/ITALY, anacleto.dagostino@unipi.it; Valentina ORSI, University of Siena, Siena/ITALY, valentina.orsi@unisi.it. Our thanks go the the Ministry of Culture and Tourism that granted the permit of excavations, its representative, Özcan Șimşek from Istanbul Archaeological Museum, and to Hasan Şenyurt, director of the Yozgat Museum, for their support and precious advice. The 2018 excavation season was possible thanks to financial support granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Italian Republic, the Foundation OrMe - Oriente Mediterraneo and University of Florence. The collaboration with the University Bozok of Yozgat was active and productive, involving directely the professors D. Taşkan and A. Kaharaman Çinar in the activity of the expedition. Archaeologists, specialists and students from University of Florence, Pisa, Siena, Yozgat, Çorum and Kırşehir, directed by prof. Stefania Mazzoni (M. Kibaroğlu deputy director), contributed to the excavations and topographic activities and work on the po ery analysis. Some students (İ. Erdal, C. Baran, U. Atik, G. Özkan, M. Büyükkurt, V. Bayar, Y. Canbolat form Bozok University, T. Harun from Ankara Universitesi) took part in a formative stage of work on the history and archaeology of the site and its region, the methodology of the archaeological research, the functioning of the technical procedures of data acquisition, and the registration and elaboration of data. From this year Prof. Yilmaz Selim Erdal from Ankara Hace epe University is the official anthropologist of the expedition. This report is the product of teamwork in which the efforts and dedication of all team members and workers came together: our gratitude goes to all of them. .............................................................................................................. 161 broad terms for some periods and in more detail for others2. A part form some sherds dating doubtfully to the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age and others to the O oman period, the main evidence relates to the time range from the late Early Bronze Age to the first centuries of the Common Era3. The earliest phase of occupation, dating to the late 3rd millennium and the beginning of 2nd, is documented only by po ery sherds in secondary contexts and on the surface, and the coeval layers have not yet been reached in the excavation trenches, probably because they were removed by the later building activities of Hi ite date. The Late Bronze and Iron Ages are be er documented with the finding of portions of large buildings and the remains of houses, in stratigraphic sequence. The more recent phases, dating to the Roman period, are documented by houses, exposed on the lower terrace, and, in all probability, the largest architectural structures identified by the geophysical prospection. Within this sequence we are not able to recognize if breaks in continuity happened but if so, apparently they were not substantial. The 2018 excavations in Area D produced meaningful evidence of the earliest phases of the Iron Age and the change of se lement at the turn of 1st millennium BC (Fig. 1); in Area A other portions of the large Building II have been exposed, adding other details to reconstruct its layout. The way the se lement changed after the fall of the Hi ite state remains still obscure but some elements suggest that at least in this part of the site a new form of occupation arose. AREA D This area, located halfway up the southern hillside of the höyük, yielded the external wing of Building III, dating to the Hi ite period. It occupies a prominent topographical position and can be a potential candidate for an official and adminsitrative building. Between 2015 and 2017, excavations documented two rows of east-west-oriented rooms of which the floors and the lower part of the walls are preserved, with traces of a severe fire that caused its destruction. The southern limit of the building, which is terraced and adapted to the shape of the mound, is marked by a wall of large granite boulders, downslope from the room floors. Unfortunately no objects have 2 3 Mazzoni and Pecchioli 2015; Mazzoni, D’Agostino, Orsi 2019. D’Agostino and Orsi 2015, 166-182. 162 ............................................................................................................ been found on the floors, which suggests that the building was abandoned before its final destruction. The target of the 2018 season of work in Area D was to understand the development of the occupation following the abandonment and destruction of Building III. For this reason, we focused digging operations on the north of the room 433 exposed in 2017, in order to secure of an area not covered by the Iron Age stone glacis, here only partially preserved, the construction of which disturbed the earlier layers in other sectors of Area D. Here, as in the central and western portions of excavation area, the burnt remains of the Hi ite Building III were leveled and the area rese led. The area object of excavations is very limited in size, partially eroded, and does not give us any clear idea of the typology of houses and quality of occupation but provide a good sequence of at least five architectonic phases that follow one another without gaps and characterized by similar features of soil compositions and quality of constructions. However some general and preliminary remark can be made. The earliest structures consists of round pits and relics of dwellings, with some floors in beaten earth (Fig. 2). In the course of the time the se led area grew and in recent layers the constructions are more dense, leaving li le room to open-air spaces (Fig. 3). Some retaining small walls are intended to strengthen the slope of the ancient mound and allow passage along its edge, connecting the different houses (Fig. 4). The Iron Age layers have been disturbed by the building activities of Late Iron Age date and mainly by the movements of soil necessary to build the large stone glacis surrounding the upper part of the mound, intended to reinforce the slope and make the top of the mound more suitable for a planned rese lement. We don’t know if the glacis, exposed only in its external and eroded surface, also had a defensive purpose and was part of a more large structured device including a citadel wall on its top. The first preliminary results of radiocarbon determinations of samples of a wooden post found in situ in room 433 of Building III gave us dates consistent with the preliminary observations of the ceramic repertoire associated with the foundations and the layers filling the rooms. Although the time span is still large, we can however confirm a date around the16th and 13th centuries for construction and use of this structure. Further research on other contextual samples currently in progress and the dendrochronological analysis will allow specialists to be more precise in dating, restricting the range of possibility. .............................................................................................................. 163 The results we obtained in the last season of work are productive in terms of stratigraphic sequence and associated materials (Fig. 5). The preliminary analysis allows us to identify an Early Iron Age po ery production, both hand-made and painted. The Middle Iron Age assemblage is well-articulated and comprises various shapes and technological characteristics that have been grouped in distinct wares, and in some case could be considered good markers of relative chronology. As for the hand-made painted assemblage, more types have been identified and the repertoire of shapes and finishing technique is growing, suggesting a greater importance of the local active contribution to the renovation of the po ery horizon at the beginning of the Iron Age (Fig. 6). Of particular interest is also the identification of different stylistic variants within the so-called Silhoue e or Alişar IV ceramic repertoire of Middle Iron Age date, giving us information about the relative chronology (Fig. 7). Also the Late Iron Age repertoire of sherds has been object of deep analysis and we are starting to understand more about its articulation and composition. AREA A The excavations carried out between 2013 and 2017 in Area A exposed architectural remains pertaining to a large building (Building II) that shows a complex layout with different units (Fig. 8). Only the groundwork built in large granite boulders and the sub-foundation structures in middle-sized stones have been preserved a few centimeters below the topsoil. This superficial position of the massive remains left from the collapse of the enormous building, which has kept them visible, is due to the reuse of mudbricks and stones for building materials over the course of centuries, starting from the Iron Age onwards and recently the tampering caused by ploughs and tractors for agricultural activities. Even though the elevation of the wall is not preserved and only the foundation structures are, in two cases portions of the room floors have been found and consist of beaten earth with loose tiny gravel. In the last season another interesting feature related to the floor of an external space was discovered, individuating the ground level. A portion of the large court which develops east of the central body of Building II is paved with a mosaic cobbled floor made of pieces of stones arranged in groups by color (white, black or dark blue and red, two yellow pieces) and following alternating triangular pa erns (Fig. 9). The floor is partially preserved and covers an area of 7.19x3 164 ............................................................................................................ m, with the orientation of the long side NNE-SSW. This is a unique finding of its kind4. In fact we know that mosaic floors made of small river pebbles are typical features of Phrygian and Syro-Hi ite and Neo-Assyrian architecture5 in the Iron Age but until now no specimen of Late Bronze Age had be known in the Ancient Near East. The mosaic floor of Uşaklı is characterized by the use of larger pieces of stones compared to the small river pebbles of other later sites and the arrangement of geometrically disposed triangular motifs also represents a distinctive trait, as the Phrygian mosaic floors show more complex asymmetric pa erns and the other Near-Eastern specimens are dominated by the checkerboard motif. This raises new questions about the models that inspired the Iron Age mosaic floors and moves back in time the first appearance of a variant of this decorative technique in central Anatolia of Late Bronze Age alonside the Greek and Aegean specimens6. A large foundation wall, WNW-ESE oriented, not well preserved, departs from the southeastern corner of the building that excavations have exposed so far (Figs 10 and 11). The limits of the wall towards the slope of the terrace lay on a probable outcrop of virgin soil or, alternatively, a base formed by virgin soil that can suggest the building was erected in prominent position in relation to the rest of the lower town and evidently the surrounding fields. This evidence, together with the traces of some preparatory work revealed in the 2013 season in a small sounding on the north-eastern side of the structure, indicate that extensive leveling of the irregularities of the ground was needed to prepare the site where the building was planned to be constructed. CONCLUDING REMARKS The finding of the mosaic stone floor confirms the peculiarity of Building II, on the lower terrace, and documents an interesting experimentation in architectural features that characterized the Late Bronze Age at Uşaklı. It is an unusual solution to decorate a floor not a ested elsewhere in Hi ite architecture, even though pebbles and flagstones in relations to open spaces, rooms, street and passages have been used in sites such as Kuşaklı, Ortaköy and Boğazköy, for example. In our case the finding context, namely the court of a building that could be interpeted as a temple and – if the suggested identification of the site with the city of Zippalanda is confirmed by future research 4 5 6 D’Agostino, forthcoming. Young 1965; Bunnens 2016. Podzuweit and Salzmann 1977; Salzmann 1982. .............................................................................................................. 165 – may be the temple of the Storm God mentioned in the wri en sources, provides a peculiar background for an unconventional work. The change of quality and dimension of structures and contextually the appearance of a new po ery production on the mound is a marker of a general se lement reorganization. The destruction of Building III probably meant the end of an important monumental architectural phase linked to the urban shape that the Hi ites gave to the site and its organization. This urban conception with its massive public structures started to be deeply modified, in part compromised and drastically reduced in dimension and significance, marking the beginning of a crisis period. From an archaeological point of view the crisis period experienced by the se lement is materialized by the destruction of the Hi ite building and its lack of reconstruction and the new phase is identified by a clear change in the quality of constructions and function, in the layers covering the Building III remains, showing the features of a village. This of course marks the period after the collapse of the Hi ite state organization, inaugurating the beginning of the Iron Age. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Bunnens, G., 2016, “Neo-Assyrian pebble mosaics in their architectural context”, in J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke & T. Greenfield (eds.), The archaeology of the Assyrian empire, Cambridge, 59-70. D’Agostino, A., forthcoming, “A mosaic floor from the Late Bronze Age Building II of Uşaklı Höyük (Central Turkey)”, Antiquity, Project Gallery. D’Agostino, A., Orsi, V., 2015, “The archaeological survey: Methods and Materials”, in S. Mazzoni and F. Pecchioli (eds.), The Uşaklı Höyük Survey Project (20082012). A final report, (Studia Asiana 10), Firenze, 35-343. Mazzoni, S., D’Agostino, A., O , V., 2019, “Exploring a site in the North Central Anatolian Plateau: Archaeological Research at Uşaklı Höyük (2013-2015)”, Asia Anteriore Antica. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures 1, 57-142. Mazzoni, S. and Pecchioli Daddi, F., (eds), 2015, The Uşaklı Höyük Survey Project (2008-2012). A final Report, (Studia Asiana 10), Firenze. Podzuweit, C., Salzmann, D., 1977, “Ein mykenischer Kieselmosaik-fussboden aus Tiryns”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 92, 123-37 Salzmann, D., 1982, Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kieselmosaiken: von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Tesseratechnik. Berlin. Young, S.R., 1965, “Early Mosaics at Gordion”, Expedition Magazine 7.3, 4-13. h p:// www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/?p=987 (accessed on 17 January 2019). 166 ............................................................................................................ Fig. 1: Uşaklı Höyük and the excavation areas. From south-east. Fig. 2: Area D, Middle Iron Age floor and walls. From east. .............................................................................................................. 167 Fig. 3: Area D, Middle Iron Age walls. From south-west. 168 ............................................................................................................ Fig. 4: Area D, Middle Iron Age walls and floors. From west. Fig. 5: Area D, Middle Iron Age kitchen pot. .............................................................................................................. 169 Fig. 6: Area D, Early Iron Age hand-made painted po ery. Fig. 7: Area D, Middle Iron Age painted po ery (Silhoue e or Alişar IV style) from 2016-2019 seasons. 170 ............................................................................................................ Fig. 8: Area A, Building II. General view at the beginning of the excavation season. The workers mark the limit of the 2018 trench. From east. Fig. 9: Area A, Building II. The mosaic stone floor. From south-east. .............................................................................................................. 171 Fig. 10: Area A, Building II. The foundation wall exposed in 2018. From south-east. Fig. 11: Area A, Building II. The foundation wall exposed in 2018. From west-north-west. 172 ............................................................................................................