SOMA 2010: Proceedings of 14th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev Ukraine 23-25 April 2010 9781407311760, 9781407341460

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Committee Listings
Table of Contents
Introduction
A new Late-Hittite Sphinx
An architectural fragment with an image of ‘Daniel’
Some thoughts on the military harbour of Knidos
The dangers and risks of private trading from the Black Sea to Athens during the Fourth Century BC
The port illustration on the floor mosaic of the Yakto Villa
Management of underwater historical cultural heritage
The place of the Dipylon Master in Attic Late Geometric pottery of the mid-8th century B.C.
Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians of the Upper Tigris region: New evidence from the excavations at Zeviya Tivilki (Kumru Tarlası)
The Imperial sculpture workshops: the origin of images of children in the depiction of the Exodus on Early Christian sarcophagi
The fish industry in the Northern Pontic region (Cherson): Questions of continuity and prosperity in the early Byzantine period
Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypothesis: A case study of the Celts in the north Pontic area
The problem of dating the settlements of Zarubinian archaeological culture in the Middle Dnepr valley, with help of ancient imports
Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion of some Chersonesos settlements based on cartographic data
Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast
Economy of the sacred in rural Anatolia: Incomes, properties, transactions
‘Green and brown’ white wares from the collection of the Archaeological Museum, National University of Kiev (Ukraine)
Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures in the upper Tigris region: A case study of Salat Tepe and its environment
Six anchorages west of Antalya – Turkey
Depictions of ships on Attic black-and red-Figured vases: Some peculiarities
Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware from the lower city sondage in Kelenderis
Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea)
A Multidisciplinary study: Facial Reconstruction

Citation preview

BAR S2555 2013

SOMA 2010 Proceedings of 14th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology

MOROZOVA & ONIZ (Eds)

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Kiev, Ukraine, 23–25 April 2010

PROCEEDINGS Edited by

of Yana Morozova Hakan Oniz 14TH SYMPOSIUM ON MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

SOMA 2010

B A R

BAR International Series 2555 Edited by and Hakan ONIZ Yana MOROZOVA 2013 TARAS SHEVCHENKO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF KYIV Kiev-Ukraine, 23-25 April 2010

КИЇВСЬКИЙ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИЙ УНІВЕРСИТЕТ ІМЕНІ ТАРАСА ШЕВЧЕНКА SOMA 2010 2555 cover.indd 1

17/09/2013 16:27:42

SOMA 2010 Proceedings of 14th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Kiev, Ukraine, 23–25 April 2010 Edited by

Yana Morozova Hakan Oniz

BAR International Series 2555 2013

ISBN 9781407311760 paperback ISBN 9781407341460 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311760 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

14TH SYMPOSIUM ON MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY TARAS SHEVCHENKO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF KYIV Kiev-Ukraine, 23-25 April 2010

Scientific Commitee Prof.Dr. Viktor Kolesnyk Prof.Dr. Viktor Stavnuk Prof.Dr. Rostislav Terpilovsky Prof.Dr. Mikhail Gladkyh Prof.Dr. Ahmet Tirpan Assoc.Prof.Dr .Asuman Baldiran Asst.Prof.Dr. Sengul Aydingun Asst.Prof.Dr. Ertekin Doksanalti Dr. Sergey Zelenko Dr. Juriy Gomon Dr. Ehud Galili Hakan Oniz, Ph.D.C. Organizaing Committee Prof. Viktor Stavnuk Dr. Juriy Gomon Yana Morozova Maria Timoshenko Viktor Vahaneev Hakan Oniz Erdoğan Aslan Ceyda Oztosun

КИЇВСЬКИЙ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИЙ УНІВЕРСИТЕТ ІМЕНІ ТАРАСА ШЕВЧЕНКА

Conference was supported by General Association of Mediterranean Archaeology

Contents A new Late-Hittite Sphinx��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Sengul Aydıngün and Hasan Karakaya An architectural fragment with an image of ‘Daniel’���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 Asuman Baldiran and Ilker Mete Mimiroglu Some thoughts on the military harbour of Knidos������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 Aytekin Buyukozer The dangers and risks of private trading from the Black Sea to Athens during the Fourth Century BC��������������������������� 17 Muzaffer Demır The port illustration on the floor mosaic of the Yakto Villa���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 Ayşe F. Erol Management of underwater historical cultural heritage���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 Sergei Fazlulin The place of the Dipylon Master in Attic Late Geometric pottery of the mid-8th century B.C.��������������������������������������� 35 Konstantinos Galanakis Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians of the Upper Tigris region: New evidence from the excavations at Zeviya Tivilki (Kumru Tarlası)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 43 Ahmet Gormus, A. Tuba Okse and Erkan Atay The Imperial sculpture workshops: the origin of images of children in the depiction of the Exodus on Early Christian sarcophagi�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 Lihi Habas The fish industry in the Northern Pontic region (Cherson): Questions of continuity and prosperity in the early Byzantine period���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Martina Jirouskova Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypothesis: a case study of the Celts in the north Pontic area������������������������� 71 Gennadiy Kazakevıch The problem of dating the settlements of Zarubinian archaeological culture in the Middle Dnepr valley, with help of ancient imports������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77 Kateryna Korniienko Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion of some Chersonesos settlements based on cartographic data�������� 79 Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić Economy of the sacred in rural Anatolia: incomes, properties, transactions������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat ‘Green and brown’ white wares from the collection of the Archaeological Museum, National University of Kiev (Ukraine)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 Iana Morozova, Sergii Zelenko and Mariia Tymoshenko Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures in the upper Tigris region: a case study of Salat Tepe and its environment��������� 133 Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş Six anchorages west of Antalya – Turkey ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 Hakan Oniz Depictions of ships on Attic black- and red-Figured vases: some peculiarities ������������������������������������������������������������� 153 Anna Petrakova Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware from the lower city sondage in Kelenderis���������������������������������������������������� 161 Mehmet Tekocak Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea)������������������������������������������������������������� 171 Viktor Vakhonieiev A Multidisciplinary study: facial Reconstruction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 Aysun Altunöz Yonuk ii

Introduction The fourteenth annual meeting of the Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA2010) was held in Kiev, Ukraine, between on 23 and 25 25 April 2010, at the Taras Shevchenko National University, with the support of the General Association of Mediterranean Archaeology. As with previous conferences, this symposium provided an important opportunity for scholars and researchers to come together and discuss their researches in a friendly and supportive atmosphere. The aegis of the symposium grows steadily wider due to the increased importance and knowledge of interdisciplinary works in today’s scientific era. The presentations focussed on themes such as maritime, trade, colonization and related subjects using archaeological data collected in contexts located within the Mediterranean basin and the Ancient Near Eastern area, chronologically ranging from the Prehistoric to Medieval periods.

iii

iv

A new Late-Hittite Sphinx Sengul Aydıngün and Hasan Karakaya Kocaeli University, Turkey; Edirne Museum, Turkey

A sphinx relief orthostat (Figs. 1 and 2) was seized on the Hamzabeyli border on 11 May 2007 and taken to the Edirne Museum.1 The museum circulated pictures of the object all over Turkey, with the help of the police and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, but no information was obtained about its possible origins. Our study is an attempt to provide some helpful data as to where it came from and when it was carved, based on its stylistic characteristics.

res. 119). Similar depictions of sphinx heads began in Late Hittite cities at the time of the Aramaic king Barrakab (730 BCE) (Akurgal 1995: şek.104-105). Our sphinx, in its current form, shows a great resemblance to the orthostats and bas-reliefs of Sakcagözü (Coba Höyük), near the village of Keferdiz-Gaziantep, showing the highest level of Assyrian and Aramaic artistic influences.

Sphinx (mythological creature)

The two sphinxes registered as A/4 and A/12, positioned on the two sides of the palace entrance in Sakcagözü are almost identically styled (Ortmann 1971: 529-532). The basic difference is that these sphinxes have nine lines of feathers in their wings instead of seven. Also the line of pomegranates above the head is missing in the Sakcagözü example. On the other bas-reliefs the sphinxes are also shown with the same beard styles, manes and wings.

Measurements: 77 x 84cm Material: Basaltic-andesite rock In this second orthostat from Edirne Museum, on the top line there are fourteen pomegranates tied together; below there is a walking sphinx with human head, and winged lion body. The head wears a bell-shaped helmet or hat with front twisted horns. The head has no neck; the almondshaped eyes and the eyebrows are incised. The wavy and orderly hair is well trimmed and worn long to the shoulders and curled at the ends. An ear protrudes from the two lines of tufts of hair in the front. The moustache is shown by light, perpendicular incisions and a curly beard comes down from just below the lower lip. The front of the lion-shaped body is seemingly covered by mane and fur, but there is also the suggestion of feathers. This design continues down the front part of the body. The wings are formed of six lines of feathers, some lengthy and pointed towards the rear of the body. The wings are longer than the body and cover part of the snake-headed tail.

As well as the Sakçagözü orthostats, the sphinx registered as G/1 from Zincirli (Ortmann 1971:547 G/1 taf. 64/b) is closely related in style. With the exception of the head, its wings and body are similar. Even the number of lines of feathers on the wing is the same. But instead of the hat with horns and bell-shapes, the Sakçagözü sphinx wears a crown with flowers. The face is clean shaven. A statue pedestal, now in the İstanbul Eski Şark Eserleri Museum and styled in the form of two bas-reliefs of sphinx-forms, from the Sakcagözü excavations gives us another comparison. With the exception of their beards, these creatures are almost identical to our sphinx. The hairstyle, the ears coming out of the lock of hair, the nose, large eyes, the shape of the wings, the details of the fur on the chest, the mane of the lion, the length of the body, the design of the ribs, the shorter hair underneath the body, reminiscent of plaits, are all undertaken in a similar style and fashion.

The ribs consist of five incised lines of incision just below the wings. The four legs are depicted in a walking position. On one leg joint a triangle of three beads can be seen. According to Akurgal, these three beads represent a local style in south-east Anatolia (Akurgal 1995). The rear legs are well-muscled from the hip, and from the knee onwards they show in folds. The sharp claws support the powerful creature as he walks.

Another sphinx-shaped orthostat comes from Carchemish. That creature has wings and two heads, one a human and the other a lion (Orthmann, Woolley, et al., 1914: plt. B. 14, I:10). The example from Edirne differs in the line of pomegranates and its single head. The Carchemish sphinx, with its double-horned helmet, shaven and rectangular face, large nose and the two plaits coming down from behind the ears, shows the typical characteristics of Hittites and Luwi. The way the mane and the wings are detailed is different than the Edirne sphinx. In Edirne the eagle-styled wing is longer. Also, while the position of the fore legs is similar, the hind legs are different. Also the claws of the

The composite beast on the orthostat from the Edirne Museum has its hair and beard arranged in the typical Assyrian and Aramaic manner. The fact that it has a moustache and beard goes against Hittite tradition. The bell-shaped hat and side-lock of hair coming from the front of the ear show genuine Aramaic features (Akurgal 1995:  Orthostat: large stone blocks at the outer wall of any monumental structure. This line of stone blocks is generally made of basalt or limestone. 1

1

SOMA 2010 Zincirli in Contex”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 356: 15-49 Faist B. and U.Finkbeiner (2002) “Emar, Eine syriche Stad unter hethitischer Herrschaft”, Die Hethitier und Ihr Reich Das Volk Der 1000 Götter, Bonn,193,pic.6. Kohlemeyer K. (2009) The Temple of Strom God in Aleppo During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Near Eastern Archeology, 72/4: 190-202 Ortmann W. (1971)Untersuchungen zur spathethitischen Kunst, Bonn. 529-532. Özgüç N. (1965) Kültepe Mühür Baskılarında Anadolu Grubu , Seals and Seal Impresions of Level Ib From Karum Kanish, Ankara. Özgüç N. (1968) Kanis Karumu Ib Katı Mühürleri ve Mühür Baskıları, Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib From Karum Kanish , Ankara. Özgüç N. and Ö.Tunca (2001) Kültepe Kanis Mühürlü ve Yazıtlı Kil Bullalar, Sealed and Inscribed Clay Bullae, Ankara. Özgüç T. (1978) Maşat Höyük Kazıları ve Çevresindeki Araştırmalar, Excavations at Maşat Höyük and Investigations in its Vicinity, TTK, Ankara. Özgüç T. (1982) Maşat Höyük II, Ankara. Özgüç T. (2005) Kültepe, YKB, İstanbul. Scholen, J.D and A.S. Fink (2009a) “New Excavations at Zincirli Höyük in Turkey (Ancient Sam’al) and Discovery of Inscribed Mortuary Stele”, Bulletin of The American Schools of Oriental Research, 356: 1-13. Scholen,J.D and A.S Fink (2009b) “Searching for Ancient Sam’al: New Excavations at Zincirli in Turkey,” Near Eastern Archeology, 72/4:203-219. Woolley C.L, and T.E.Lawrence, D.G. Hogarth, (1914) Carchemish Part I, London. Woolley C.L and T.E. Lawrence,P.L, Guy (1921) Carchemish Part II, London.

Carchemish sphinx are depicted with more detail. In both bas-reliefs the creatures are walking on a plane, but the Edirne Museum orthostat has a shorter plane. In view of the general craftsmanship, the bas-relief carving of the Edirne sphinx is different. One puzzling question is that, to our knowledge, the line of pomegranates is unique and differs from all artworks coming from the Late Hittites centres. A pomegranate is encountered only once – on the hand of the Goddess Kubaba, from Carchemish-Cerablus. According to Akurgal, the bas-relief of Kupaba from Carchemish had been carved in the style of Late Hittite Period Traditional trend II (Akurgal 1995: pic. 95) On the other hand, from its stylistic differences, Carchemish is not likely to be the origin of the Edirne Museum sphinx. It is clear that the sphinx from the Edirne Museum shows many more southern influences. Another striking parallel is the winged creature with human head seen on the basrelief decorated terracotta fragments discovered in Emar (Feist and Finkbeiner 2002: 193, pic. 6). From all the above, the orthostat from the Edirne museum can be taken as a Late Hittite object, with a likely date of 700-730 BCE (end of 8th century BCE), and the possible place of origin has to be somewhere near today’s Turkish/Syrian border, from a Late Hittite centre between Gaziantep and Kahramanmaras. References Akurgal E. (1995) Hatti ve Hitit Uygarlıkları, İzmir. Darga A. M. (1992) Hitit Sanatı, İstanbul. Erkanal A. (1993) Anadolu’da Bulunan Suriye Kökenli Mühürler ve Mühür Baskıları, Ankara. Eudora J. S. and V.R. Herrmann (2009) “An Eternal Feast at Sam’al: The New Iron Age Mortuary Stele from

2

Sengul Aydingün and Hasan Karakaya: A New Late-Hittite Sphinx

3

4

An architectural fragment with an image of ‘Daniel’ Asuman Baldiran and Ilker Mete Mimiroglu

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

Daniel, one of the prophets of Old Testament, has been a favourite subject for architecture and architectural decoration since the 4th century. In his lifetime Daniel served the kings of Babylon and the Book of Daniel contains detailed prophecies about the times that were to follow him (Apostolos 1994: 96).

showing that it was meant to be seen from all four sides. As the upper side is not patterned and there is bullet hole, it suggests that the block might be a base of some kind (Fig 3). Although the villagers stated that the monolith was possibly brought from ruins 7km to the north of the village of Dikilitaş village this cannot be proved. Near Dikilitaş there are two historical settlements, the original names of which are not known. These settlements are near the border between Lycaonia and Isauria within the borders of Lycaonia. The first settlement is a castle on the peak of Elvastepe, situated about 5km north-east of the village (Fig. 7). Two reliefs and a cistern found during the field research are understood to be Roman. The second settlement is in a valley 7km north of the village. Rock-tombs with flat pedestal forms and stelae with bases are thought to be from the Early Byzantium period to the Arab invasions of the 8th and 9th centuries AD.

The most recurring scene from his life is ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’. During the reign of Darius the Mede, Daniel was cast into a lion’s den as a result of conspiracy by other royal ministers: he miraculously survived (Kitab-ı Mukaddes 1993: 841). Images of this episode show Daniel the prophet amidst two lions. Other images show Habakkuk the prophet, carried by an angel, above Daniel and the lions. Habakkuk, who feeds Daniel in the den, is usually illustrated holding bread in his hand (Tradigo 2006: 77). In 2008, in Dikilitaş, within the boundaries of the town of Seydişehir, Konya (Fig.1), one such Daniel image, uncommon in Anatolia, was found during field research. The work stands independently next to a Late Ottoman fountain in the northern part of the village. The piece is in cubic form (63 x 54 x 45cm) (Fig. 2). It is an architectural block made of limestone and it is patterned with relief technique. The bottom part of the block is partly below ground; its front and rear parts are patterned and on the top there is what looks like a bullet hole (Fig.3).

During the development and reconstruction of public facilities in Dikilitaş during the 1950s, many stone pieces were brought in from these nearby ancient cities and reused in the construction of modern buildings. The researches in the village have shown that about 300 architectural pieces have been used for the construction of houses and fountains. It is interesting that the frame pieces and door lintel were reused without segmentation. In the light of other finds, the piece under discussion here is strongly believed to have been brought from the Byzantium settlement to the north of the village (Fig. 8).

In the centre of the front panel, Daniel is standing with his hands in the ‘Orans’ position. His legs below the knees are missing. His head and the lion on the right are broken but the front legs of the lion on the left can be seen. Daniel seems clearly (judging from the residual carved marks) to be wearing a Phrygian hood and Persian garments – trousers, robe, and cape held in place with a round fibula (Fig. 4).

‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’, a scene widely used in Christian art is the prefiguration of the resurrection of Jesus. The earliest illustrations of Daniel can be seen as wall paintings in catacombs of 4th century Italy (Milburn 1988:36). The prophet can be seen with lions on the 73 inventory numbered glass work in the Hermitage Museum and on many numbered ivory pyxis reliefs in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Bank 1977: 276; Weitzmann 1972:33). The scene is also widely used on the wall paintings of churches and architectural sculptured pieces in Anatolia. There are Daniel scenes in Göreme El Nazar, Tokalı, Eustathios, Elmalı, Karanlık, Kılıçlar churches, the Tağar church, the Soğanlı Barbara church, and the Ihlara Pürenli Seki ve Ağaçaltı churches in the Kapadokya region (Restle 1969:101-196).

The heads of the lions are turned towards Daniel. Their jaws are open and are depicted from the front. Although the lion on the right is worn, the marks show that the lions are placed symmetrically. The rear flanks of their bodies and the manes at the side of the architectural block are patterned with geometrical shapes using engraving technique. Latin crosses are framed with two horseshoe-shaped arches at the back side of the architectural block. The bottom sides of the crosses are below ground and the end of the right, left and upper arms of the crosses are shown widening out. Greek crosses are engraved on a round medallion at the upper middle of the composition (Figs. 5-6).

Figure 9 shows a relief of Daniel depiction taken AntakyaSeleucia and today the piece is in the Art Museum of Princeton University. Daniel is wearing the same costume as features on our Konya block, however there are no lions. The item is dated to around 525-550 (Boyd 2001:223).

The function of the segment damaged by the bullet hole is not determined. The piece is patterned on all four sides, 5

SOMA 2010 On another example in the Tarsus Museum, Daniel and the lions are styled with sun and moon symbols (Fig. 10) (Aydın 2003:265).

As the Konya block under discussion here matches these features, the evidence taken together suggests that our piece most probably dates to the 6th century (Aydın 2003:269). In consequence, our example is not only important in terms of form, but all the more so as it appears to be the first such Daniel depiction found in the Lycaonia region.

The example numbered 2157T from Limmi Island now in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum is dated to the 6th century (Fig. 11). Daniel wears a Phrygian hood and Persian dress and one of the lions by his side is biting his foot. The difference in this example is that Habakkuk the prophet is shown carried by an angel on the left (Anonymous 1999:74-75).

References Anonymous (1999). İstanbul Çevre Kültürleri (TrakyaBitinya ve Bizans) İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri, İstanbul Apostolos, D. (1994). Dictionary of Christian Art, New York. Aydın, A. (2003). ‘Tarsus Müzesi’ndeki Daniel Betimli Levha’, Adalya Sayı: 6, Antalya, 265-280. Bank, A. (1977). Byzantine Art in the Collections of Soviet Museums, Leningrad. Boyd, S. (2001). ‘The Relief Decoration of the Church Building at Seleucia Pieria’, in Antioch the Lost Ancient City, Princeton, 220-228. Brayer, A. and Winfield, D. (1985). The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, Vol. 1, Washington. Cutler, A. and Lowden, J. (1961). ‘Daniel’, Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Vol. 1, New York, 583-584. Ferguson, G. (1961). Signs & Symbols in Christian Art, New York. İpşiroğlu, Mazhar, Şevket (2003). Ahtamar Kilisesi Işıkla Canlanan Duvarlar, İstanbul. Kitabı, M. (1993). İstanbul. Milburn, R (1988). Early Christian Art and Architecture, Aldershot. Restle, M. (1969). Wall Painting in Asia Minor, Shanon. Tradigo, A. (2006). Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Los Angeles. Weitzmann, K. (1972). Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection III, Washington.

There is a ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’ relief, dated 10th century, at Van’s Akdamar church. The lions rest on their front legs. There is also an angel with a depiction of Habakkuk in the left upper corner (İpşiroğlu 2003:75, 99). A similar depiction to our scene of Daniel can be seen in Trabzon, in front of the Aşağı Kent city-wall (Tower Four) (Fig. 12). The function of this piece is undetermined (it is also cubed in form like our Konya find). The upper part has not survived and it is dated 10th century. (Bryer-Winfield 1985:189). The fact that this Trabzon piece and the Konya find described here are so similar in shape makes them both of added interest. Representations of Daniel in Konya typically appear in Persian dress and Phrygian hood, thus making them typical of Daniel iconography of the 5th century. The Latin and Geek crosses on the reverse draw particular attention – no other examples these cross motifs. (The Latin cross stands for the sufferings of Jesus, and the Greek cross represents the Church (Ferguson 1961: 164-165).) The density of the designs on the reverse increases the possibility that the piece comes from a church. In the first half of the 6th century low reliefs were preferred to high reliefs for architectural (and ivory) decoration. The figures have plasticized rather than realistic expressions.

6

Asuman Baldiran and Ilker Mete Mimiroglu: An architectural fragment with an image of ‘Daniel’

Fig. 1: General view of the village of Dikilitaş

Fig. 2: Frontal view of ‘Daniel’ with Lion 7

SOMA 2010

Fig. 6: Drawing of crosses on the reverse of the ‘Daniel’ block

Fig. 3: General view of the ‘Daniel’ block

Fig. 7: Elvas Tepe and Roman castle

Fig. 4: Drawing of the ‘Daniel’ block

Fig. 8: Ruins of a church

Fig. 5: Reverse view of ‘Daniel’ block

8

Asuman Baldiran and Ilker Mete Mimiroglu: An architectural fragment with an image of ‘Daniel’

Fig. 11: Panel showing ‘Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ (Anonymous 1999)

Fig. 9: Panel showing ‘Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ (after Boyd 2001)

Fig. 10: Panel showing ‘Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ (Bahri Yıldız) Fig. 12: Panel showing ‘Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ (after Bryer-Winfield 1985)

9

10

Some thoughts on the military harbour of Knidos Aytekin Buyukozer

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature, Selçuk University, Konya - Turkey

As the city walls from Cape Krio and the mainland continue towards the entrance of the harbour, the entrance is quite narrow and it is surrounded by towers, the military harbour is defined as a walled harbour, known as “Λιμήν Κλειστος” “Limen Kleistos” in Greek. It is one of the earliest examples of walled harbours common in the Hellenistic period.

bordered by a mole stretching from the mainland to Kap Krio. On the southwest corner of the harbour basin there is one rectangular tower on each side of the entrance narrowed by the mole. Military harbours have more closed structures than trading harbours. In accordance with this the opening in the west of the harbour basin at Knidos was closed by a wide mole, both to reinforce the defence system and also to protect the harbour from western winds.

One of the coastal towns of the Karia region, Knidos is located at the furthest point of the Datça Peninsula (Fig. 1). The city was founded on land facing south, and on the small island (Kap Krio) in front of it (Bruns-Özgan 2002: 4-5.) (Fig. 2). The city was called the double city by Strabon because of its topographic nature (Strab. XIV, 656). The mainland and Kap Krio (the reason why Knidos was called the double city) were connected by the spit of mud and sand accumulated over the years and turned into a peninsula. This formation named by the Greek as ‘Euripos’ (Pausan. VIII. 30, 2) is called ‘tombolo’ as a geographical term today (Erel et al. 2005: 542). Even though the mainland and the island are joined today, as far as we know from Strabon’s account (Strab. XIV, 656) they were actually connected by a mole built from the mainland to Kap Krio and with a narrow channel in between. The traffic between the mainland and Kap Krio in the ancient period is thought to have relied on small boats or a mobile bridge (Love 1968: 134).

The harbour entrance narrowed by the mole was controlled through two towers built facing each other. The entrance was moved to the southwest of the mole, and thanks to the corridor that was created any enemy ships reaching here could be attacked with catapults from the towers on Kap Krio and the mainland. There is a round tower (Round Tower 2) adjacent to the western wall on the south-western corner of the mole. This tower must have been used as a lighthouse or a signal tower rather than being a part of the defence system. Problems with the Military Harbour Some questions arise as a result of the lack of excavations around the Knidos military harbour. The biggest question concerns the location of the necessary arsenals within the harbour. Another problem with the military harbour is that there is no pier, and it cannot be determined where crews would have boarded their ships. Another problematic area is the opening on the western wall of the military harbour, which we suggest might be the starting point of the mole, and the following channel.

Two bays appeared in the east and the west of the neck when the mainland and Kap Krio were connected; they were preserved and turned into ports (Fig. 3): the western harbours are known as the ‘Small Harbour’, the ‘Western Harbour’, and the ‘Military Harbour’. The harbours to the east are called the ‘Big Harbour’, the ‘Eastern Harbour’, and the ‘Trading Harbour’ because of its function.

Ship arsenals No ruins of any arsenal have been discovered in the Knidos military harbour so far. There is also no account of their existence in the ancient sources or the inscriptions found in the city.

Military Harbour The military harbour is a smaller harbour to the west of the neck of the bay (Figs. 4-5). The harbour basin covers an area of approximately 20,560m². While the eastern part of Kap Krio is the border of the harbour basin in the ‘Trading Harbour’ so that the area could be used to its maximum capacity topographically. Similarly the western part of the mainland was used to its maximum in the ‘Military Harbour’, and the mole was built at that point marking the border of the harbour (Fig. 6). As far as we know from Strabon (Strab. XIV, 656), the harbour was used as a military harbour for 20 triremes.

Arsenals are important structures. While trading ships could stay in the water during winter months, military ships would be taken to the arsenals for protection, maintenance and repair until the weather conditions improved (Blackman 1982a: 204; Blackman 2008: 657). Arsenals are usually located on the shorelines and, via a ramp, extend inland (Blackman 2008: 657-660) (Plate 54.1-2). It is not possible at Kap Krio to have such a structure at this part of the harbour because of the nature of the shoreline. The same situation is also valid for the part of the harbour facing the mainland. Therefore if the

The mainland is to the north of the ‘Military Harbour’, Kap Krio is to the south, and the neck connecting the mainland and Kap Krio is to the east. The west of the harbour is 11

SOMA 2010 arsenals existed they must have been either on the neck of the bay or on the mole. It is known that there were several structures on the wide jetties of ancient harbours, including arsenals. The lack of any evidence on the harbour wall or the mole facing the harbour basin suggests that this area had a different purpose (Fig. 7). Therefore the arsenals might have been built on the mole of the military harbour. Vitruvius (Vitr. X. 12) suggests that arsenals face north to avoid direct sunlight. However, a possible arsenal on the Knidos mole would face northeast. Nevertheless, when ancient harbours are examined it is seen that Vitruvius’ claim is not always valid. The well-documented Arsenals at Zea and Munichia harbours in Pireus were not built in any particular direction (Morrison et al. 2000: Fig. 71). Examples at face mostly northeast (Blackman-Lentini 2003: 407, Fig. 23). Therefore Vitruvius’ statement cannot be relied upon in relation to arsenals and the Knidos mole.

suggest is the starting point of the mole, and the channel following it (Fig. 8-9). This opening, connected directly to the sea, stretches to the mainland as a channel for 16.5 metres. As this feature is now silted up, it was not possible to determine how far towards the mainland it continued. Teams carrying out studies in Knidos were also unable to survey this opening and the channel leading from it. Only Bruns-Özgan mentions a gate here (2002: 59). The problem of the silting up of ancient harbours, especially at closed harbours, is a common one. To overcome this problem, harbour engineers built flushing channels around the harbour (Raban 2009: 66). These channels, often cut through rocks, had their openings slightly higher than the high-tide levels (Raban 2009: 66). Examples of such channels have been found at Dor (2nd century B.C.) and Sidon. In the coastal lagoons of Cosa and Seleukeia, the flow of waste water through the fish ponds or rivers was directed towards the harbour. The Mediterranean, of course, does not have high tides and the tidal range is not enough to create powerful jets of water that could clear silts from closed harbours and other solutions had to be found. The channel between the military and trading harbours at Knidos enabled a certain circulation. However as the military harbour was a closed one, the opening on the western wall might be liked to some sort of silt removal or flushing channel. This can only be an assumption until excavations are carried out in this area.

The possible width of the Knidos mole and its ability to accommodate arsenals is also an interesting question. Arsenal ramps require a certain angle of inclination between land and sea – with an average length between 30 and 45 metres. The mole of the military harbour is 44 metres wide. The width of the mole is sufficient to locate an arsenal on it but it cannot be ascertained without excavations in this area. There are many coastal towns in Anatolia with double harbours such as at Knidos. The smaller of these were often used as military harbours. However, no arsenals have been discovered yet in these harbours. One of the few examples found in Anatolia is at Simena in the Kekova region, having a small harbour area. Some data gathered from geophysical measurements at Loryma possibly also relate to arsenals (Held 2006: 193-194, Fig. 8; Blackman 2010: 389-391). Pedersen states that the wall ruins seen underwater to the south of the Zephyrion peninsula at Halikarnassos could be an arsenal (Pedersen 2010: 303304, Fig. 42).

References Blackman, D. J. 1982. ‘Ancient Harbours in the Mediterranean’. Part 1, IJNA 11.2, 79-104. Blackman, D. J. 2008. ‘Sea Transport, Part 2: Harbors’ The Oxford Handbook Engineering and Technology in The Classical World (Ed: J.P. Oleson), Oxford, 638-670. Blackman, D. J. 2010. ‘The Rhodian Fleet and the Karian Coast’, Hellenistic Karia (Ed. R. Van Bremen-J-M Carbon), Bourdeaux, 379-392. Blackman D. J. and Lentini, 2003. ‘The Port of Sicilian Naxos and the Ancient Urban Landspace’, Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Clasical Archaeology, Boston, 23-26 August 2003 (Ed: C.C. Mattusch, A.A. Donohue, A. Brauer), Boston: 546550. Bruns-Özgan, C. 2002, Knidos. Antik Kent Rehberi, Konya. Erel, L., Aytaç, A., N. Çağatay, N. 2005 ‘Türkiye Kıyılarındaki Antik Limanların Kuruluş ve Gelişmelerinde Yüzey Şekillerinin Etkisi’, Ulusal Coğrafya Kongresi, 29-30, İstanbul, 542-545. Held, W. 2006. ‘Loryma’, Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien, (Ed. W. Radt), Byzas 3, İstanbul, 187-197. Herodot, Historia, Herodot Tarihi, (Çev. A. Erhat), İstanbul, 1973. Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1923. ‘Die antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres’, Beiträge Zur Geschichte des Städtebaus im Altertum, Klio Beiheft 14, Leipzig.

Pier Another problem at the Knidos military harbour is that no traces of pier have been found so far. This raises the question of how crews boarded their battle ships. Similar problems are also encountered in relation to the harbours of Pireus. As the shoreline of both of the small military harbours of Pireus was built up with arsenals, it was suggested that crews boarded their ships using the piers of Kantharos harbour (Blackman 2008, 656). The same might have been the case at Knidos. Moreover, the channel between the military harbour and the trading harbour at Knidos must have made it an easier task at Knidos than at Pireus. It is likely that the crews embarked from the pier in the trading harbour. The water channel and gate on the western wall Another problematic area concerning the harbour is the opening on the western wall of the military harbour that we 12

Aytekin Buyukozer: Some thoughts on the military harbour of Knidos Raban, A. 2009. The Harbour of Sebastos (Caesarea Maritima) in its Roman Mediterranean Context (Ed. M. Artzy-B. Goodman-Z. Gal), BAR International Series S1930, Oxford. Strabon, 2000. Geographika: Antik Anadolu Coğrafyası, (Çev. A. Pekman), İstanbul. Vitruvius, 1990 De Architectura Libri Decem, Mimarlık Üzerine On Kitap, (Çev. S. Güven), Ankara.

Love, I. C. 1968. ‘Knidos: Excavations in 1967’, TAD XVI. II, 133-159. Morrison, J. S., Coates, J. F., Rankov, N. B. 2000. The Athenian Trireme: The History and construction of an ancient Greek warship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pausanias, 1918-1935 Periegesis tes Hellados, Pausanian Description of Greece I-V (Çev. W. H. Jones). Pedersen, P. 2010. ‘The City Wall of Halicarnassos’, Hellenistic Karia (Ed. R. Van Bremen-J-M Carbon), Bordeaux, 269-316.

Figure 1: Datça Peninsula

13

SOMA 2010

Figure 2: City Plan of Knidos (after Bruns-Özgan, Bruns-Özgan 2002, Fig. 123)

Figure 3: The Harbours of Knidos

14

Aytekin Buyukozer: Some thoughts on the military harbour of Knidos

Figure 5: Plan of the Military Harbour

Figure 4: Military Harbour of Knidos

Figure 6: Mole of the Military Harbour

Figure 7: Mole of the Military Harbour

Figure 8: Channel

15

SOMA 2010

Figure 9: Harbours and Channel

16

The dangers and risks of private trading from the Black Sea to Athens during the Fourth Century BC Muzaffer Demır

Mugla University, Department of History, Mugla - Turkey

However, it appears that as an emporos,4 he made all of his previous journeys to the Black Sea. So, he could be justified to some degree in his claims, as literary sources often refer to the wreckage of the ships due to the stormy weather in the Black Sea. His latest journey to the Black Sea was in March 347 BC, when the Athenian and the Bosporan Kingdom renewed their reciprocal privileges.5 The risks of trading throughout the straits because of piratical attacks6 as well as piracy on the open sea7 may also have posed a danger for the traders in this year. However, Nicobolus seems to have returned safely to Athens without any difficulty. I do not see any reason

The theme of the dangers of travelling by sea in general is familiar throughout ancient literature.1 In the speech Against Pantaenetus (XXXVII) by Demosthenes, the plaintiff, Nicobolus, claims to have lost his ship during his visit to the Crimean Bosporus in 347 BC. Pantaenetus is obliged to seek financial help from Nicobolus and Euergus in order to keep his mining property. They receive their interest in the form of a rent from the profits of the mine. However, Pantaenetus does not pay his rent. Therefore, Euergus and a representative for the absent Nicobolus confiscate the property - the mine, the slaves, and the accumulated silver ore. Upon this Pantaenetus brings the suit against Nicobolus. Consequently Nicobolus, having come back from the Black Sea, presents this paragraphe speech against this suit.

lease on mining property for 125 minae (31). This shows that Nicobolus was not a poor person. 4   He may have been trading grain to Athens at that time, which was possibly vital for the state in the second half of the fourth century BC. We know that he was likely to be a citizen (4-5, 13-16, 24, 29-31, 55) and possibly an emporos as he made more journeys in the past. However, as he stressed, it is not clear whether he went to Pontus to protect his investment as a bottomry lender (54), although it is not usual for the lender to go with the borrowers. Normally, they only send some associates as witnesses to the proceedings of the bottomry loan. This makes his status of being an emporos a high possibility. 5   In 347/6 BC a decree was successfully proposed by the motion of Androtion in honour of the joint rulers of Bosporus, Spartocus II and Pairisades I (IG II² 212; Tod 167; Harding 82). This inscription gives us a general review of relations covering the years between 433/2 BC and the 340’s. In brief, Spartocus II and Pairisades I promise to provide for the export of wheat to Athens, as their father (Leucon I) had done in his lifetime, and to serve the demos with whatever they need. In these conditions, the Athenians will grant them all that they ask. Since the new rulers award the Athenians the privileges that their predecessors, Satyrus I and Leucon I, had bestowed on them, the demos will bestow on them the privileges once given to their father and grandfather. Moreover, they are to be granted 1,000 drachmas of gold to crown each of them at the Great Panathenaea, as was previously decreed for Leucon I. And a stele recording this decree is to be set up next to that bearing the similar decree honouring Satyrus I and Leucon I. 6   As to give an example, during the Ionian revolt in the early 490’s, Histiaeus the Milesian was in fact attempting to increase his military strength by resorting to a sort of piracy in the Hellespont and Byzantium (Herod.VI.5, 26). It also seems that Hellespontophylakes were set up at the Hellespont by the Athenian state, probably before the Peloponnesian War, for the security of trade from the Athenian harbours through the straits against the attacks of the enemy and pirates rather than controlling the imports of the allies (Finley 1981: 55). We assume that during his Pontus expedition in about 436-5 BC, Pericles could easily have established them as a display of the extent of Athenian power in this region and they may have been consolidated as a permanent force during the Peloponnesian war. 7   The ancient sources extending from the fifth century to the turn of the second century BC shows that the Heniochians, the Taurians, the Achaeans, the people of Georgi and Zygi were very active in the Black Sea as pirates (Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, lines 1475-1485; Herod. IV.18, 103; Diod.III.43.4; 20.25.1-3; Str.VII.4.2, 6; II.2.12). Piracy was widespread in the Black Sea (Braund 1989: 116; also see Burstein 1976: 35; McKechnie 1989: 122-6). Besides, from the accounts of dockyard superintendents, it appears that in 335/4 the strategus Diotimus was sent by the Athenian state to the Pontus to provide protection against pirates (IG II/III² 1623, 276 sqq.). As to the example of a private trader exposed to piracy, Lycon of Heracleia (Dem.LII.3-5) had been exposed to a piratical attack at the turn of 360 BC.

Nicobolus uses his absence to counter some of the complaints made by Pantaenetus and he says that he had sailed from Athens in March (XXXVII.6) to Pontus (XXXVII.6, 23-24). He was there probably until the end of the same sailing season (8, 9, 23, 25, 44) and then returned to Athens (10, 15). There is no reason to think that Nicobolus made this up to convince the jury.2 What is much more relevant to our topic is Nicobolus’ statement “he came back [from the Black Sea], having lost practically everything he had when he sailed”(10). Later, he also claims that he was making small profits by going to sea on perilous journeys (54). His stress on ‘losing nearly everthing’ (10) and ‘small profits’ (54) possibly does not reflect the facts as it is difficult to know whether he claimed this to show himself a man of no means in order not to have a heavy penalty imposed on him like his partner, Euerges.3   Hesiod Op. 247-248, 390-2, 618 ff. For the comments on these lines, see West (1978: 219, 313-314, 322, 325), especially pages 313-314, where he refers to the various other ancient sources concerning the distaste for the hardships and dangers of seafaring. 2   Pantaenetus also accepts that Nicobolus had not done any of these things but says that he had ordered that these wrongs be done while he was in Pontus (24). Moreover, Nicobolus’ absence from Athens could not be given as a proof that he could not have given these orders. It is not possible to know whether Euergus and Nicobolus colloborated in giving these orders. Euerges and Nicobolus were partners when they helped Pantaenetus financially. When Pantaenetus did not pay his rent, Euergus may have used one of Nicobolus’ slaves to do these acts. We know that the master is responsible for the offenses of his slave (See Isager-Hansen 1975: 194, quoting Hyperides IV.22) and Nicobolus accepts that his slave committed these acts. Even if he had not given the order and had been away from home, Nicobolus would have been responsible for his slave’ s acts. 3   Pantaenetus had brought suit against Euergus, Nicobolus’ friend, and had been awarded two talents as damages (46). On the other hand, it could be possible that the loans, that were made from small profits as a result of going to sea on perilous journeys, were bottomry loans (54). One of his non-bottomry loans is for 40 minae (4), and he jointly takes out a 1

17

SOMA 2010 why he would have lost all of his fortune as a result of this voyage. The only other possibility could be that the transactions of the goods did not bring any profit, which is also a weak possibility. The most likely explanation is that as a result of his trade journey to the Bosporus in 347 BC, he did not become almost totally banktrupt, but only lost his ship and its goods in a particular incident because of a storm or an attack of the pirates, as he emphasised in the phrase quoted above that he was continuously engaged in ‘perilous journeys’ in the Black Sea for the sake of his city.

is saved be the joint property of the lenders. And in regard to these matters nothing shall have greater effect than the agreement (12-13). One interesting feature of the speech is that “the various documents preserved within the text appear to be all genuine, not composed by scholiasts in a later age to fill the gaps...This contract is of particular importance for the study of Athenian mercantile practise because, although maritime contracts are mentioned in several other orations, this is the only one of which we have the complete text” (MacDowell 2004: 131). According to the agreement, which Lacritus, the elder brother of the two Phaselites, drew up for them,10 the interest rate for this maritime loan was very high. An increased rate of danger would increase the rate of interest. For example, in the document quoted above, the rate for the return voyage was to be increased from 22.5 percent to 30 percent if the borrowers on their return trip did not leave the Black Sea before the expected start of the stormy weather about the middle of September. After the sailing season was closed by the middle of September, the interest rates went up accordingly. On the other hand, in the speech Against Phormio that I will discuss below, there appears to be a fixed 30 percent interest rate. The main reason for high interest rate was related to the loss of the ship accidentally, in which case the lender would not be able to claim his money back.11 In view of these facts, I do not think that there would have been many lenders who would loan money to the merchants trading especially with the troubled and distant region of the Black Sea, nor many merchants who would want to engage in trade with this region by assuming the responsibility of the payment of such a huge amount of interest, which would not have brought much profit.

Another relevant speech is Against Lacritus (XXXV).8 What concerns us in this speech is the information concerning the Black Sea region that was mostly given within the context of the agreement quoted below, which Androcles claims to be breached by the defendants.9 As for Androcles, the agreement is following as : Androcles of Sphettus and Nausicrates of Carystus lent to Artemo and Apollodoros, both of Phaselis, three thousand drachmae in silver for a voyage from Athens to Mende or Scione, and thence to Bosporus - or if they so choose, for a voyage to the left parts of the Pontus as far as Borysthenes, and hence back to Athens, on interest at the rate of two hundred and twenty-five drachmae on the thousand; but if they should sail out from Pontus to Hieron after the rising of Arcturus at three hundred on the thousand, on the security of three thousand jars of wine of Mende, which should be conveyed from Mende or Scione in the twentyoared ship of which Hyblesius is owner. They give these goods as security, owing no money upon them to any other person, nor will they make any additional loan upon this security; and they agree to bring back to Athens in the same vessel all the goods put on board in Pontus as a return cargo; and if the goods are brought safe to Athens, the borrowers are to pay to the lenders the money due in accordance with the agreement within twenty days after they shall have arrived at Athens, without deduction save for such jettison as the passengers shall have made by common agreement, and for money paid to enemies; but without deduction for any other loss. And if they do not enter Pontus, but remain in the Hellespont ten days after the rising of the dog-star, and disembark their goods at a port where the Athenians have no right of reprisals, and from thence complete their voyage to Athens, let them pay the interest written into the contract the year before. And if the vessel in which the goods shall be conveyed suffers aught beyond repair, but the security is saved, let whatever

The defendants are permitted to sell their cargo at any port on their way before going into the Black Sea (13), in which case the interest rate remains the same. The safety and the profitability of the voyage seem to have been given primary importance by the lender rather than the destination, possibly in face of the dangers of traveling further into the Black Sea. In the contract, it is also implied that the merchants trading between Athens and Pontus had to take the risk of some sort of a retaliation, probably by the Athenian state, when they called at certain enemy ports in the Hellespont.   Lacritus claimed that the cargo had been lost in a shipwreck, and the remaining money had been lent to another Phaselite and was probably lost as well. Upon this Artemon and Apollodorus left Athens again for Chios. Subsequently Artemon died. So Androcles prosecuted Lacritus, as Artemon’s heir, along with Apollodorus for recovery of his money by the procedure of mercantile cases. 11   In this court-case, the main aim of Androcles, the plaintiff, was to prove that Artemo and Apollodorus had breached the contract. He provides withness that the ship not only belonged to Hyblesius as stated in the contract but also to Antipater (XXXIV.33). Thus, Androcles claims that the wreckage of the ship is not covered by the contract of the loan and consequently the wreckage’s relativity to the contract hangs on the goods. If this was the case, Androcles could reclaim his loan back. In other words, he needed to prove that there was nothing worthy in the ship to cover all of the security when it was wrecked, which would not release the defendants from fulfilment of the contract. 10

  Isager and Hansen (1975: 170) say that “This speech may be dated to the period 354-340 BC. It must have been delivered before 338 BC, the year Isocrates’ death (40) and presumably also before 340, when the Athenians war against Philip of Macedon made maritime trade on the Pontus an exceedingly risky undertaking”. The speech may have been written before 340 BC. However, the Athenian war against Philip II of Macedon, as shall be mentioned below, could not be given as a reason for this. 9   As contrary to the conditions of the contract, the first charge brought by Androcles was that Artemo and Apollodorus carried less than the prescribed quantity of wine; secondly, they used additional loans upon the security provided to himself and his partner; thirdly they did not bring back a sufficient amount of return cargo and finally they did not want to make the payment on the grounds that the vessel had been wrecked. 8

18

Muzaffer Demir: The dangers and risks of private trading from the Black Sea to Athens It is said that the ship, in which Lacritus the defendant carried goods from Bosporus, was wrecked on its way back somewhere between Panticapaeum and Theodosia. The most important point with regard to our discussion is that the plaintiff himself also accepts that this ship was wrecked (XXXV.31). As there is no claim by him that the defendants themselves had sunk the ship in order to get rid of the payment of security along with its interests,12 the ship is likely to have been wrecked by a storm sometime before 338 BC (cf. Lys.XXII.14).13

Since the defendant does not deny this in any part of the speech, Lampis’ ship, (Dem.XXXIV.10-12) may also have been wrecked in the Northern-Black Sea waters in 328/7 BC. Chrysippus does not make any mention of where exactly this ship was wrecked, but it could not be far away from Panticapaeum, as Lampis was able to return safely to this city in a boat after the shipwreck. He says that “For although his ship was already overloaded, as we learn, he took on an additional deck-load of one thousand hides, which proved the cause of the loss of the vessel. He himself made his escape in the boat with the rest of Dio’s servants [his master and the owner of the ship], but lost more than thirty lives besides the cargo.”

One can also find some more specific information concerning the private trading between Athens and the Black Sea in Against Phormio (XXXIV) of the Demosthenic Corpus.14 As stated above, there was 30 percent interest, equal to 600 drachmae (23, 25, 41). Apart from the interest, there are references to two different penalties which Phormio has to pay if he breaches the contract. One is 3, 900 drachmae (26, 25, 30, 41) and the other is 5, 000 drachmae (33). However, the genuine penalty seems to have been 5, 000 drachmae imposed if Phormio neither shipped the goods from Bosporus nor paid Lampis. It appears that this penalty was also much more than the loan (20 minae) and its interest (600 drachmae) and even than the price of goods that Phormio could purchase possibly by making use of additional loans (4, 000 drachmae). The important point is that the risk for the private trader was higher than in the speech Against Lacritus in view of the much higher interest rate and the amount of the agreed penalty. Given these facts, Phormio was probably one of the few traders who would have assumed such a risky trade with the Black Sea and this could also imply that private trading with the Black Sea may have been limited.

However, Chrysippus’ claims that this ship was lost due to the overloading might be a fiction as in the case of the natural loss of the ship, the lender Chrysippus would have had to have been satisfied with whatever was saved as security from the ship-wreck.15 So, it is possible that the ship may have been lost due to stormy weather somewhere between Panticapaeum and Theodosia, even possibly at a great distance from the land in open waters on their way to the south coast of the Black Sea. This seems likely as so many persons lost their lives. The plaintiff also mentions one of the practical difficulties that a merchant would face in selling his goods in any particular place. He claims (8-10) that Phormio was unable to sell his goods in the Bosporus not only on the grounds that his cargo was unworthy, but also due to the disruption of war in the Bosporan Kingdom. However, his claim may not be right as the key part of his argument was focused on the condition that Phormio was not able to sell his goods in the Bosporus to pay back his loan with its interest to Lampis for any reason that the plaintiff could present plausibly in front of the jury.16

In the beginning, Chrysippus accuses Phormio of taking additional loans without his knowledge, four thousand five hundred drachmae from Theodorus the Phoenician and one thousand drachmae from Lampis, the shipowner. If Phormio really took these additional loans, his trade would be much more risky, as he would now have to pay interest rates for these additional loans as well. It must have been very difficult for Phormio to decide to take this additional risk, which may cast doubts on Chrysippus’ claim in this respect, although the more risky it was, the more profitable the trade was.

  In the speech Against Lacritus by Demosthenes (XXXIV.12-13) the context of an actual agreement of a bottomry loan is mentioned. In this actual agreement, in case of the loss of the vessel, the lenders share whatever is saved. If in the agreement, they decided that in case of the natural loss of the ship, the lender, Chrysippus would have to be satisfied with whatever was saved from the ship-wreck, especially when it is taken into consideration that loan money with its interest was lost in this shipwreck, it was very important for Chrysippus to prove that the ship was lost because of the irresponsibility of its crew. This sort of a clause in the contract could be possible, as Phormio says that he should be freed from all obligations by the shipwreck (XXXIV.33), which makes the contract null and void (XXXIV.3). He must be implying a shipwreck as a result of a natural disaster here. 16   First of all, he claims that Phormio did not deliver the letters either to his slave or to his partner, stating the sum which he had lent and the security and telling them to inspect the goods to be unshipped in Bosporus. He continues that Phormio did not bring as a witness his slave who was in Bosporus or his partner to prove his case (28). On the other hand, Chrysippus himself presents witnesses neither to Phormio’s initial promises to repay immediately after he returned to Athens (12) nor to Phormio’s claim that he brought merchandise aboard the ship that was wrecked (34). He does not call his slave or partner in Bosporus to Athens as potential witnesses to give testimony. Chrysippus should have taken this responsibility whatsoever. Chrysippus only presents Lampis’ inconsistent testimony. Immediately after his return to Athens, Lampis declared that he had received no money and Phormio did not put goods on board the wrecked-ship (XXXIV.11, cf.14, 16, 20, 41, 46, 47, 49). It is imaginable that Lampis himself took the money and therefore denies having received it before Phormio’s arrival in Athens as later on Lampis seems to have been forced to confess before the arbitration 15

  The merchants may also have intentionally sunk the ships not to pay the loan money back along with its interest. In Dem.XXXII.5-9, the merchants Hegestratus and Zenothemis, originally born in the city of Massalia, lay a sheme to sink the ship on its way back from Sicily. 13   Strabo (VII.4.3) states that the Crimean seaboard is rugged and mountainous, and is subject to furious storms from the north. On the other hand, Xenophon (Hell.VII.5.12-14 ) gives us the only extensive account that at Salmydessus “many vessels sailing to the Pontus run aground and are wrecked; for there are shoals that extend far and wide.” 14   Chrysippus, the plaintiff in this case, did not believe that the money which he lent Phormio had been lost on the ship that was wrecked; because as many have kept taunting him, and especially those who were in Bosporus with Phormio, who knew that he had not lost the money together with the ship. So he thought it “a dreadful thing not to seek redress after being wronged as he had been by this man (2)”. 12

19

SOMA 2010 Actually, the plaintiff presents contradictory statements with regard to the disruption of the market by the war. If there was lack of demand and bad business conditions in Bosporus because of war, Phormio had had a slave and friend in Bosporus who could have warned him of these conditions before he brought his goods to Bosporus (XXXIV.8) despite the fact that the communications were perhaps not very good. Besides, he claims that Lampis overloaded his ship with hides and unfortunately his ship sank after he left the Bosporus in the same year, although Lampis possibly did not overload it.17 The contradiction is that if the war had disrupted the trade to a great extent, it would have been less easy for Lampis to overload his ship. We are only left with one option that these goods may have been marketed to Scythians, who were at war and did not want to buy the goods of Phormio any longer. Nevertheless, contrary to the claim of the plaintiff, Phormio could easily have found a buyer for his goods, especially if he was selling olive oil, which was in demand in Pontus.

above, and around the Straits,18 which required them to adjust themselves to new developments all the time. Bosporus was one of these places. Although I doubt that the war and the disruption of market occurred at the time of the arrival of the defendant in the Bosporus, this might have happened at any time before the date of the court case. The plaintiff would not have based his argument on a pure fantasy. In sum, in three of Demosthenes’ four forensic speeches19 related to the Black Sea, the merchants sailing to the Black Sea were exposed to dangers in the Black Sea. The frequency of mentions of dangers in this relatively small amount of evidence may show that this is not a coincidence. However, it is not possible to take the evidence in these forensic speeches as a sign of the complete failure of the operation of Black Sea trade by the individual merchants, as these sources of evidence are haphazard, incidental, and only concern disputes between individual parties. They might actually indicate the seriousness of the situation especially in the second half of the fourth century and the existence of this evidence does not lead us to discard the possibility that the same situation had been continuing since the beginning of the fourth century BC. At the same time, we know that the merchants also appear to be men of small means.20 They appear to have borrowed money from more than one person and to have carried their goods in someone else’s ship. It is possible that one merchant who traded once a year, did not venture to do the same thing every year. As the trade at sea was risky, they would only rarely have taken this risk especially given the high interest rate. So, they would have done this only at times when they did not have much to lose.21 With regard to

These various cases show the possibility that individual traders may have had difficulties in marketing their goods in the classical period and may even have lost all of their fortune in certain cities on their way due to political problems both at around the Black Sea as mentioned

that he received the money from Phormio (18, 35, 46) and that it was lost in the ship-wreck. However, Chrysippus does not prosecute Lampis but Phormio. This is possibly because Phormio was not able to produce anybody who witnessed that the payment by Phormio in Bosporus actually took place (28-32, 46). But also if Chrysippus had prosecuted Lampis, it would have been very difficult to find evidence that he laundered the money. Furthermore, Lampis had been involved indirectly in the contract between Chrysippus and Phormio. In other words, the possibility of the loss of the money in the ship-wreck would easily have cleared Lampis, but not Phormio. On the other hand, contrary to Chrysippus’ claim, Phormio may in fact have preferred to stay in Bosporus in order to make larger profits as his other additional lenders, Lampis and Theodorus possibly bought so many goods from Bosporus, along with interest of the loans paid by Phormio, that no space would be left for Phormio’s goods. There was always the possibility of Phormio staying at Bosporus as accepted by Chrysippus (32, 35). So, Phormio possibly did not break the contract and paid Chrysippus’ loan with its agreed penalty to Lampis by borrowing 120 Cyzicenes from another lender in Bosporus. If Phormio had been able to borrow money to pay this penalty, he must have already bought a large amount of goods from Bosporus as a security for this loan in Bosporus. He may have been looking for a ship to carry these goods back to Athens and sell them over there. But why did he prefer to pay the penalty money and why did he not pay the exact amount of the loan and its interest? The reason for the former might be that he thought he would make a much larger profit than the penalty money itself if he could carry his large supply of goods in another ship independently and probably in the next season which would have extended the period of the contract. Besides, since the ship was overloaded, Phormio may not possibly have wanted to carry his goods on this ship. There is also another point to be stressed within this conjecture. Phormio could not have paid the amount of single loans with its interests to Theodorus and Lampis without the proceeds of the sale of his goods. Since it seems that they did not bring any suit against Phormio, their loan along with its interest was paid back by Phormio, the amount of which could vary between 6, 600 and 7, 150 drachmae. So, it seems that Phormio sold some of his merchandise as he paid back the money to the creditors for the outward voyage. Finally, the war does not seem to have prevented Lampis from loading his ship very excessively. This is the only evidence that refers to such a war in Bosporus and this war might in fact have been a very small conflict. 17   As discussed above, in Against Lacritus, in case of a natural loss of a ship, the the lender could not have claimed his security money back. So he may have tried to show that the responsibility with the loss of the ship should lie with Lampis himself becasuse of his excessive loading.

  The easiness of intervention by hostile states, although at times, in the Hellespontine and Bosporus region was a reality. During the Peloponnesian war, there happened to be an ongoing struggle between Athens and Sparta to control the Black Sea trade, especially the corn trade, through the straits by putting pressure on Byzantium and Calchedon (particullarly see Xen. Hell.1.1.36). We also know that the cities of Byzantium and Chalcedon (Arist. Oec.II.2.4 and 10; Dem.L.17 says that the Byzantines and Chalcedonians were often stopping the grain ships in the late 360s), Cyzicus and Heraclea Pontica (in 330/29 BC, IG II² 360.35-40) as well as the cities of Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Philip II of Macedon in the Aegean, desperately required food-supplies and stopped the ships carrying corn from the Pontus to Athens between 362 and 338 BC (De Ste Croix 1972: 47, App.VIII, 314). Especially Philip II captured some Athenian vessels during the siege of Byzantium in 340/9 BC (Hammond and Griffith 1979: 575-8). 19   The other one is the speech Against Nausimachus and 18

Xenopeithes (XXXVIII), dated sometime before 322 BC. Yet the case only mentions a single loan to the Bosporan Hermonax (12).

  I think that one of the most significant passages describing the life of a merchant in Classical Athens is the following. In the speech Against Apaturius (Dem.XXXIII.4-5), the defendant says that “I, men of the jury, have by now been for a long time engaged in foreign trade, and up to a certain time risked the sea in my own person; it is not quite seven years since I gave up voyaging, and, having a moderate capital, I try to put it to work by making loans on adventures overseas. As I have visited many places and spend my time in your exchange, I know most of those who are seafarers,...” What we can infer from these chapters are that (1) the seaborne trade business was risky (2) because of its risk, the traders usually gave up trading after they made enough money to be able to make loans to the other traders (3) they usually loaned money to each other (4) Since their number was not many, they knew each other (5) they wandered from one place to another (6) they were originally from different city-states. 21   The individual trader does not seem to have been wealthy enough to carry the goods in his own ship. Actually in Athens, there appear to have 20

20

Muzaffer Demir: The dangers and risks of private trading from the Black Sea to Athens the Black Sea especially the interest rates appear to have been very high, which could also imply that many lenders refrained from lending money to those who wanted to trade with the Black Sea. This was likely to be because trading with the Black Sea was a dangerous and risky business due to the storms, piratical attacks, and recurrent political instabilities. When all these factors are taken into account, the volume of private trading from the Black Sea may have been more limited than is usually assumed.

Bibliography Braund, D and Tsetskhladze, G.R. (1989) ‘The Export of Slaves from Colchis’. Classical Quarterly, 39, 114-25. De Ste. Croix., G.E.M. (1972) The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, London. Finley, M.I. (1981) ‘The Fifth Century Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet’. IN: Shaw B.D. and R.P. Salter eds., Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, London, 4162. Hammond, N.G.L. and G.T. Griffith (1979) A History of Macedonia II , Oxford. Harding, P. (1985) From the end of the Peloponnesian war to the battle of Ipsus: translated documents of Greece and Rome, Cambridge. Isager, S and M.H. Hansen (1975), Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century BC : A historical introduction and commentary on the ParagrapheSpeeches and the Speech Against Dionysodorus in the Corpus Demosthenicum, Odense. MacDowell, D.M. ed. (2004), Demosthenes, speeches 2738, University of Texas Press. McKechnie. P. (1989), Outsiders in the Greek Cities in the Fourth Century BC, London. Millet, P.C. (1983) ‘Maritime Loans and the Structure of Credit in the Fourth Century Athens’. IN: Garnsey P. and K. Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker eds. Trade in the Ancient Economy, London, 36-52. Reed, C.M. (1980) Maritime Traders in the Greek World of the Archaic and Classical Periods, Diss., Oxford. To M.N. (1933-48), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II, Oxford. West, M.L. (1978) Hesiod: Works and Days, Oxford.

been a few merchants, who owned their own ships and traded their own goods in these ships at the same time (Reed 1980: 47-57; cf. Millet 1983: 36-52). The defendants mentioned above, who engaged in trade with the Black Sea, had to carry their goods in the ships that belonged to someone else and had to get their loan from several lenders (cf.Dem.XXXII). Even one of the ships in which they carried their goods seems to have belonged to two persons (the case of Antipater and Hyblesius). All these facts would mean that the merchandise business was not very well organised in Athens. Possibly Phormio or Apollodorus did not have a fortune to lose when they decided to take their trade expedition to the Pontus.

21

22

The port illustration on the floor mosaic of the Yakto Villa Ayşe F. Erol Gazi University, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Department of Archaeology, Ankara-Turkey

The floor mosaic revealed by the excavations carried out in the Daphne Yakto Villa in 1932 depicts the topography, architecture and daily life of Daphne and Antiocheia. The villa, which was a countryside residence for Daphne, is also known as the Ardaburius Villa. He was magister milutum of Antiocheia from 450-457 A.D., thus dating the mosaic to the mid-5th century (Campbell 1934: 202).

illustrated in the mosaics that might be a water reservoir. Furthermore, water flowing into this second structure are clearly indicated with two separate white lines which symbolize Pallas and Kastalia whose names are inscribed in the upper part of the mosaic border (Plate 3). Within this context, the reservoir which Malalas referred to as storing water coming from sources of Daphne must be this second building located to the right of the U-shaped structure on the mosaic.

The buildings illustrated on the border that frames the central panel of the floor mosaic have no spatial relationship with each other. Generally being frontally depicted, they are identified by inscriptions or by scenes pointing to their function (Plate 1). Among them, there is an interesting U-shaped structure with a roof supported by a colonnade (Plate 2). Its centre depicts water and there is an illustration reminiscent of a boat. Making use of records of antique writers and comparisons with architecturally similar materials, our interpretation of the function of this building is presented below.

On the basis of Libanios’s remarks about a dock by the River Orontes for ships to process their loads (Downey 1959: 652), the same U-shaped structure can be thought of as a port building. The following comparisons with architecturally similar material present information that confirms this assertion. The building on the mosaic includes a colonnaded area consisting of columns designed in Ionian style. This colonnaded part, behind which stairs are placed in a U-shape, encircles the water in the middle. While there is the image of a boat in this water-area, a sort of a platform to which the boat approaches is observed to be attached to a stair placed in front of the colonnaded area.

There are certain suggestions that have been put forward by previous scholars on the nature and function of this structure. To quote from Malalas (Jeffreys 1963:100), after building an aqueduct extending from Daphne to Antiocheia, Emperor Hadrianus erected a spectacular reservoir to store and control water flowing from Daphne’s Saramanna source and called it the ‘theatre of source of Daphne’. Based on that, R. Chowen and D. Levi suggested that this building could be the reservoir mentioned by Malalas (Chowen 1956: 275-277; Levi 1947: 326). However, if one compares it to architecturally similar formations, one gets the impression that this structure was meant to be a port. The aim of this presentation is to demonstrate this with reference to some similar architectural material. The fact that in his piece ‘Antioch Mosaic Pavements’, while Levi declares the building is a water reservoir, he also asserts that there is a boat-like depiction on the water-filled area of the illustration, which appears to support our hypothesis (Levi 1947: 329).

The city of Antiocheia was situated in a very important and fertile area by virtue of its being founded at an intersection point between the roads to the east and west. The River Orontes, and the canals joining it, facilitated the transfer of goods to Seleucia Pieria, Antiocheia’s port settlement via the river. From there they could access the Mediterranean (Downey 1962:27). A similar design was realized during the reign of the Emperor Claudius, who connected Rome, first to the port of Ostia through the canals he built on River Tiber, and then to the sea (Sear 1982:123; Savile 1941:231). By virtue of the remaining ruins, it is widely known that in antiquity there were many docks that ships could use before crossing the River Tiber (Blackman 1982:187 Fig. 2). Libanios, from the 4th century A.D., offers us the most comprehensive information on Antiocheia. While describing the town he wrote that ships carrying wheat approached the city and discharged their loads onto a stone-made dock, from where the goods were taken to the agora. (Downey 1959: 652, Downey 1959: 652)1. This statement also supports the observation that the description on the mosaic shows a boat on the water-filled area of the

On the other hand, Chowen believed that this building presented a public scene for those who sat on the theatron and watched the water go by (Chowen 1956: 275). He then backs his assertion by stating that on his visit to Africa in 128 A.D., Emperor Hadrianus had built an aqueduct extending from Carthage to Zaghouan Mountain, after which he also ordered a reservoir to be constructed by the water source on the mountain (Chowen 1956: 277). As mentioned above, Levi suggested that the building on the depiction could be a storage area from where the water coming from Daphne’s Kastalia and Pallas sources was to be distributed (Levi 1947: 326). However, to the right of the U-shaped structure, there is another formation

  For one of the earliest examples of a port complex allowing ships to approach cities through rivers, see the Lothal dock and its canals in the Harapan region, India (J. W. Shaw., ‘Greek and Roman Harbourworks, A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology’, (ed. G. F. Bass), 1972, 88-89); for a harbour settlement possibly situated on the Nile, Egypt in 3rd millenium B.C., see N. M. Flamming, Cities in the Sea, London, 1972, 40). 1

23

SOMA 2010 U-shaped structure approaching a sort of a platform. The goods that were unloaded on this platform were first taken to the frontal staired area of the colonnade that was painted in black in the mosaic. From there they were carried to the agora. Further on, a man is seen walking to the left of the U-shaped building, carrying a basket in his outstretched right hand and a package under his left arm. Even though it is not possible to make a definite assertion, this figure might very well represent a man carrying goods unloaded from the port.

Vann team, which validated the presence of breakwaters (Vann 1994:530-534), confirmed Beaufort’s descriptions and his city plan (Beaufort 1818: 249, 259). The closest example to the form and location of the water god in the middle of the water-filled area of the building is a figure of a god placed at the entrance of the Ostia port who was depicted on a sestertius from the reign of Emperor Neron (Boyce 1958: Fig. 10/2). Several suggestions have been put forward as regards the identification of this port god shown on the coin (Boyce 1958: 71; van Buren 1911: 194, footnote 2.). The similarity observed on both illustrations led to a conclusion that the god depiction in Pompeiopolis, which is a province, must have been adopted by the capital Rome (Boyce 1958:77) (Plate 6). Port structures with similar plans have already been observed on depictions on coins from the Imperial period at Ostia (Savile 1941: 231, Fig. 9), Corinth and Mothone (Boyce 1958: Fig. 13).

This colonnaded part and the black stairs behind it must have been designed to offer the public a recreational area where they could relax and enjoy any cooling breeze.2 Moreover, architectural similarities between the U-shaped structure and the harbour descriptions on a coin from Pompeiopolis (Plate 4) and on the Kelenderis mosaic (Plate 5) further present evidence in line with the idea that this structure was a port rather than a water reservoir.

As the capital of the Seleucian kingdom, Antiocheia was the administrative centre of the Syrian province during the Roman period. Situated between the River Orontes and the Silpius Hill, on a crossroad for trade routes extending from east to west, the city was strategically very important. With its fertile lowlands and abundant water resources, Antiocheia produced wheat, oil and wine. Its agricultural appeal and strategic significance made the city a very important trade centre across the eastern and Greco-Roman world. The River Orontes and its canals into the city provided a route for the Persian, Indian and Chinese goods to be first transported to Seleucia Pieria from Antiocheia and then to the Mediterranean ports (Downey 1962: 11).

Excavations carried out at Kelenderis reveal a floor mosaic in which a city scene presenting the harbour and some surrounding buildings were described. What is interesting in this depiction is a U-shaped structure with a tiled roof supported by a colonnaded part consisting of arched columns extending through the harbour (Zoroğlu 1995: 265). The depiction of the city-port in the mosaic is highly important since it provides valuable information on the location and plan of the Kelenderis harbour. On the water-filled area of the structure, there are again portrayed a sailboat and a simple boat. Zoroğlu believed this building to function as an entrepot or shops for the harbour. (Zoroğlu 1993: 195, fig. 13; Zoroğlu 1994: 32, fig. 15). The structure next to it, with its high windows and dome, looks similar to the port baths’ remains, whose current location today coincides with the plan suggested in the mosaic (Zoroğlu 1995: 265). Because the stylistic characteristics of both the geometric adornments and the lotus buds placed in the border framing the mosaic are dated to either the second half of the 5th century or the beginning of the 6th century A.D, the mosaic itself should be traced back to the same dates (Zoroğlu 1993:196; Zoroğlu 1999:519).

The mosaics displaying scenes from the city life shed light on the settlement from the antique period and its structural features. Currently exhibited in the Museum of Archaeology of Hatay, the floor mosaics of the Yakto Villa are particularly remarkable since they provide invaluable information on the city life and the architecture of Antiocheia, whose structural characteristics were heavily damaged by earthquakes. The fact that the River Orontes was appropriate for small ships to sail along and that Antiocheia’s canals offered an easy route into the port of Seleucia Pieria, and thus to the Mediterranean, enable us to imagine the idea of a port, connected to the city, into which ships would approach to load and unload.

In Soli Pompeiopolis, a coin dated to the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius, was found (see plate 3). The harbour depiction on that coin displays similarities with the architectural features of the structure shown in the mosaic (Boyce 1958:68 Fig. 10) since the U-plan structure with a roof supported by a colonnade is also present on that coin. In the water-filled part, there is an illustration of a water god. According to the information provided by Beaufort, Karamania, the Pompeiopolis harbour. looks like a basin surrounded by semi-circular walls or breakwaters (Beaufort 1818: 249, 259). The structure depicted on the Pompeiopolis coin and the research conducted by the

In his article ‘Antioch Mosaic Pavements’, Levi’s theory that the U-shaped building constituted a water reservoir is refuted by his remarks about a boat-like illustration placed in the middle of the water-filled area of the same building (Levi 1947: 329), while this testifies to the point made in this presentation. There is no evidence illustrating a setting in early water reservoirs that would allow ships or boats to enter. However, Libanios’s remarks on ships unloading wheat by the river in Antiocheia (Downey 1959: 652) confirm the existence of a port by the Orontes. The fact that in the mosaics, the boat was depicted as approaching a platform-like area3 reminds us of the presence of a setting

  For portico examples encircling the harbour in the early Anatolian cities of Miletos and Elaiussa Sebaste, see Akurgal (1988), 451 and Schneider (2008), 101-102. 2

  For boats that were used for transportation on the river, please refer to

3

24

Ayşe F. Erol: The port illustration on the floor mosaic of the Yakto Villa where ships could be used as a dock to unload their trade goods. Furthermore, since the city agora was situated by the river, it is also plausible to deduce that trade goods were first unloaded in this port and were then taken to the agora. Because the U-plan structure on the mosaic is colonnaded, it also recalls Vitrivius’s statements that porticos and shipyards that accessed the commercial centre of cities were constructed at ports built on a curved shore, or were U-shaped (Vitruvius. V. XII.1). Architectural similarities between our U-shaped structure and the ports of Pompeiopolis and Kelenderis4 remain as further evidence for the hypothesis that this was a port. Because the mosaic illustrations of Yakto and Kelenderis are dated to the mid-5th century A.D, they also chronologically overlap each other. Although the Pompeiopolis coin is an earlier example, ports with a similar plan were built in the capital and in provinces during the entire Roman Imperial period (Boyce 1958: Fig. 13).

Morey, Charles R. (1935) ‘The Excavation Of Antioch on the Orontes’, Parnassus 7/4: 9-12. Savile, Leopold H. (1941) ‘Ancient Harbours’, Antiquity XV No.59: 209-232. Sear, Frank (1982) Roman Architecture, Great Britain: B. T. Batsford. van Buren, A. W. (1911) ‘A Medallion of Antoninus Pius’, Journal of Roman Studies 1: 187-195. Vitruvius (1993) Mimarlık Üzerine On Kitap, trans. Suna Güven, İstanbul: Şevki Vanlı Mimarlık Vakfı Yayınları. Zoroğlu, Levent (1993) ‘Kelenderis 1992 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ XV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II: 189-210. Zoroğlu, Levent (1994) Kelenderis I, Kaynaklar, Kalıntılar, Buluntular, Ankara: Dönmez Ofset Basımevi. Zoroğlu, Levent (1995) ‘1994 yılı Kelenderis Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II: 263-276. Zoroğlu, Levent (1999) ‘Kelenderis Mozaiği’, Çağlar Boyunca Anadolu’da Yerleşim ve Konut Uluslararası Sempozyumu: 513-524.

Bibliography Beaufort, Francis (1881) Karamania:, A Brief Description of the South Coast of Asia Minor and of the Remains of Antiquity, London: R. Hunter Blackman, D. J. (1982) ‘Ancient Harbours in the Mediterranean. Part 2’, The İnternational Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 11/3: 185-211. Boyce, Aline A. (1958) ‘The Harbour of Pompeiopolis’, American Journal of Archaeology 62/1: 67-78. Campbell, William A. (1934) ‘Excavations at Antioch- onthe-Orontes’, American Journal of Archaeology 38/2: 201-206. Chowen, Richard H. (1956) ‘The Nature of Hadrian’s Theatron at Daphne’, American Journal of Archaeology 60/3: 275-277. Downey, Glanville (1959) ‘Libanius Oration in Praise of Antioch (Oration XI). Translated with introduction and Commentary’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103/5: 652-685. Downey, Glanville (1962) Antioch in the Age of Theodosius the Great. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press Downey, Glanville (1961) A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press Levi, Doro (1947) Antioch Mosaic Pavements I, II. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jeffreys, Elizabeth and Jeffreys, M. (1986) The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. Lionel Casson, “Harbour and River Boats of Ancient Rome”, JRS 55 I/2, 1965, 31-39 4   For an illustration of a port with similar plan, please see the portico of the Kenchreai port of Corinth, dated to the end of 4th centuty A.D., in L. İbrahim et. al. Kenchreai. Eastern Port of Corinth, Leiden, 1976, Fig. 94; for the circular port observed on late-period coins of Side, please see A. M. Mansel, Side. 1947-1966 Yılları Kazıları ve Araştırmalarının Sonuçları, Ankara, 1978, Fig. 76.

25

SOMA 2010

Figure 1. The Yakto Villa mosaic, topographical border (after Levi, 1947, Fig. LXXIX/a)

Figure 3. The Yakto Villa mosaic, topographical border, U-shaped structure and water reservoir (after Levi, 1947, Fig. LXXIX/a) Figure 2. The Yakto Villa mosaic, topographical border, U-shaped structure (after Campbell, 1934, Fig. XXII/A)

Figure 4. Harbour Illustration on a coin from the Antoninus Pius period of Pompeiopolis (after Boyce, 1958, Fig. 10/1)

26

Ayşe F. Erol: The port illustration on the floor mosaic of the Yakto Villa

Figure 5. Harbour illustration on Kelenderis mosaic (after Zoroğlu, 1999, Fig. 2)

Figure 6. Harbour Illustration on a coin from the Antoninus Pius period of Corinth (after Boyce, 1958, Fig. 13/ 4, 13/5, 13/4)

Figure 7. Harbour Illustration on a coin from the Emperor Caralla period of Mothone (after Boyce, 1958, Fig. 13/5)

27

28

Management of underwater historical cultural heritage Sergei Fazlulin

The term historical cultural heritage represents monuments of history and culture related to historical events in the lives of people, the development of society and state, and the works of material and spiritual creation that present historical, scientific, artistic, or other values. Heritage includes places, values, traditions, events, and experiences that help us understand our roots, times, and present trends of the communities in which we live. Our heritage helps us understand our national development, which is unique, and by describing our past, heritage determines our future.

Underwater historical cultural heritage covers all evidence of human existence, which have cultural, historical or archaeological nature and which partially or completely and periodically or constantly are located under water, such as: 1) Objects, construction, buildings, artifacts and human remains, together with their surrounding archaeological and natural environment. 2) Vessels, flight vehicles, other transportation vehicles, either any parts of them, their loads or another contained material, together with their archaeological and natural environment.

Human civilization grew on the coasts of rivers, lakes, and seas. They were sources of food and arteries for transport. Along these watery landscapes areas geographical discoveries were made, world trade developed, and military tragedies, unfortunately, played out. Natural cataclysms, accidents and wars destroyed whatever people built near or on the seas. It seemed back then, that water absorbed them once and forever. However, contemporary civilization learned how to explore under the water and find there evidence of historical events. A general humanizing process led to an understanding that the underwater historical cultural heritage is an integral part in the understanding of humanity, no less than our terrestrial historical cultural heritage. This is why our submerged heritage has an increasing role to play in the life of present and future generations.

3) Objects of the prehistoric period. Underwater historical cultural heritage also includes the architectural ensemble, a cliff or a painted cave. Conduits and cables, and other such installations, which are laid on the bottom of sea and are continuing to be used, are not considered as cultural heritage. Also technical constructions, which do not have any historical context, are difficult to be placed in this category. The clear time criterion, which determines the objects to be of historical cultural heritage, is absent. UNESCO states that objects older than 100 years can be recognized as underwater historical cultural heritage. In some governments this is 50 years instead of 100. According to the law covering objects of cultural heritage related to the nations of the Russian Federation, which was accepted in 2002, vessels that sank more than 40 years ago are considered as underwater cultural heritage objects.

What is meant by an ‘an increasing role to play in the life of present and future generations’? First of all, historical cultural heritage is the historical national memory and it stands for a guarantee of its progressive development. If one looks for what underwater historical cultural heritage reveals, one might find evidence of how long ago one or other country reached any specific technical progress and how has this development affected the direction of world civilization as a whole.

In the Russian tradition the study of underwater historical cultural heritage is separated into two: 1) Solely underwaterarchaeological objects, and 2) objects of military history, primarily those having connection to World War II. In the first case underwater works are conducted in accordance with its position, as issued by the field division of the Institute of Archaeology (RAN), Russian Academy of Science. From 2010 permission for similar works was issued by Rosokhrankultura. Military history studies do not require an open division. Such works, as a rule, are conducted with the coordination of different museums, or within the framework initiative of underwater clubs or other different public organizations.

Naturally, the approach to the historical cultural heritage becomes very important regarding the national development and no state representative can disregard its importance The first reflection of that importance is the urge to protect such objects and reveal their role in the historical cultural revolution. The state protection of historical cultural objects (monuments of history and culture) includes the system of legal, organizational, financial, informational and other state measures, for developing, calculating, studying, conducting historical cultural examination and establishing the boundaries of territories and zones of protection of such objects, and control their retention and use.

Objects of cultural heritage resting in underwater areas comprise the substantial part of the historical cultural heritage of Russia. However, these objects of cultural heritage are as yet not represented in the joint state list of objects of cultural heritage as monuments of history and 29

SOMA 2010 culture of the nations of the Russian Federation, or within the list of the revealed objects.

attracting skilled volunteers. In this case it is necessary to legally define the status of volunteers.

The following factors significantly complicate the situation:

6) To create museums and exhibit the results of underwater archaeology. To determine the criteria of obtaining the rights for exhibition of underwater objects in museums after conducting preparatory works and educating the museum staff.

1) The absence of state policy in the field of study, retention and of use the underwater archaeological heritage. 2) The absence of any developed legislative base for retention and utilization of objects of cultural heritage, which have been located under water.

7) To organize underwater museum exhibitions for divers. 8) To refer to the government of the Russian Federation with a request for legislation covering the introduction of necessary legislative changes, regarding questions on the basis of underwater historical cultural heritage.

3) The absence of state-specialized scientific organizations to carry out the study of objects of underwater archaeological heritage, and financing works on their study and development.

The UNESCO convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage, which was accepted in 2001, entered into force on January 2, 2009. The majority of its propositions have great scientific, theoretical, and practical value for the forming of valuable legislation for the protection of the underwater historical cultural heritage and lawenforcement activity in our country.

In the post-Soviet period, when the regulatory role of the state in underwater activities had weakened, serious problems arose about the retention of the domestic underwater historical cultural heritage. In the last 10-15 years, technical capabilities in conducting underwater studies with the aid of new technology have grown significantly. Historical cultural values on the seabed began to be revealed. However, in practice the state’s regulatory and managing functions do not work in this field of research. Any effective control or regulation about lifting the objects with historical value is absent. Frequently, the objects requiring serious expenditure on conservation and restoration are destroyed in air because of the absence of correct procedures. Not only are specialized systematic centres absent in the country, but there are no specialist museums either. There is no effective regulation for safety and control of objects raised from the sea. If the situation in Russia does not change substantially soon, it will lose a large part of the underwater historical cultural heritage, as has already happened in many countries. To prevent this happening, it is necessary to accomplish the following:

The need to adopt this international legal report is seen through the importance of underwater historical cultural heritage as a component part of the heritage of humanity. The contemporary level of high technologies, and also the development of new methods in underwater archaeology, make it possible to hope that the underwater historical cultural heritage will become accessible for wider study and appreciation. The problems of the study of underwater historical cultural heritage are caused by the specific character of the subject of scientific research. Work on the correct extraction of objects of underwater historical cultural heritage considerably differs from the traditional field methods. The underwater methods, as carried out in several countries, are already standardized. The catalyst in the development of underwater archaeology was the coincidental detection of a Roman vessel with antique sculptures, sunk approximately 2500 years ago, by Greek divers at the beginning of the 20th century. Later, the remains of another Roman ship with its cargo were discovered on the Tunisian coast. In recent decades the ‘Mary Rose’ in Great Britain, ‘Vasa’ in Sweden, the ‘Palace of Cleopatra and Alexandrine Lighthouse’ in Egypt, the ‘Kyrenia wreck’ in north Cyprus, and a number of objects near Bodrum in Turkey, which were completely or partially exhibited in museums, have been located and studied.

1) To publicize the topic and stress the importance of the underwater historical cultural heritage. 2) To initiate training of volunteers and students in basic international standards of ‘underwater archaeology’ within the framework of the activities of public organizations and departments of archaeology of the leading universities in the country. 3) To introduce rules for conducting underwaterarchaeological and sea military history expeditions. To enforce the disciplines of preliminary documentation, registration and transport of the underwater objects of historical cultural heritage.

The society named “The Memory of The Baltic” is widely known for its work in the Baltic region of our country. Some of these projects include: the excavations of the 18th-century sailing vessel, exhibited in the World Ocean Museum in Kaliningrad, the excavations of the Great Bridge in Great Novgorod, and the works at Taman and other places in Russia.

4) To create mechanism for the guaranteed safety of artifacts raised. 5) To decrease the expenditures of underwaterarchaeological and sea military history expeditions by

30

Sergei Fazlulin: Management of Underwater Historical Cultural Heritage For a long time there was no special worldwide legal managing activity for the protection of the underwater historical cultural heritage. However in November 2001 the convention of UNESCO on the protection of underwater cultural heritage was accepted. At present this convention is ratified by more than 20 countries. However, of all the countries which ratified the convention, the only countries with a true maritime history are Portugal and Spain. All the remaining countries have less importance from the point of view of maritime history. At present, the convention is being studied by the countries which have not yet signed up to it.

The participating governments must pay considerable attention to questions of training specialists in underwater archaeology, developing the methods of conservation of underwater cultural heritage, and the transfer of the technologies which relate to underwater cultural heritage. In order to fulfill the international legal instruments they must form competent departments (or to strengthen the existing departments), whose activity must be directed toward the creation, maintenance and renovation of the underwater cultural heritage, and its effective protection, conservation, exhibition and regulation and management. An integral part of the convention about protection of underwater cultural heritage includes a body of rules that can be reduced to the following propositions: Primarily, retention of the object in situ is considered as the priority rule of the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Secondly, the commercial operation of underwater cultural heritage, speculation or its irretrievable dispersal are incompatible with its protection and proper management: it must not be the object of trade, purchase, sale or barter in any has commercial sense. Thirdly, the activities related to the underwater cultural heritage must not exert negative effect on it. Fourthly, during any activity any human remains and places of worship must not be disrupted. Activities related to the underwater cultural heritage must be managed strictly in order to ensure the proper calculation of the obtained cultural, historical and archaeological information. The access of community to the underwater cultural heritage in situ is encouraged, with exception of the cases, when this access is incompatible with the tasks of protection and control. Fifthly, prior to the beginning of any activity directed toward the underwater cultural heritage, the project documents are prepared and presented to the relevant department for obtaining permission and corresponding expert opinion. As components of the project documentations about the plan of financing, the timeline for realizing the project, the previous studies or the preliminary operation, safety regulation, protection of surrounding environment, publication plan and others should be covered. Preliminary operation includes the estimation, which determines significance and degree of the vulnerability of underwater cultural heritage and natural environment in connection with the possible damage as a result of the realization of the project, and also the possibility of obtaining data to satisfy the objectives of the project. Design documentation must contain confirmation of financing the project and an action plan for any cases of unforeseen situations and to ensure the conservation of the cultural heritage.

Russia is not a participant in the convention. The laws on objects of cultural heritage (monuments of the history of culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation do not actually refer to the underwater historical cultural heritage. In the state list of the objects of historical cultural heritage, not one single underwater object is listed. On the basis of analysis of the convention about the protection of underwater cultural heritage it is possible to formulate the following principles: a) For any permission for an activity relating to underwater cultural heritage, in situ studies and examinations must be undertaken before work begins. b) The excavated underwater heritage must be preserved and controlled correctly. c) The underwater heritage must not be exploited for commercial purposes. d) The proper respect for all human remains found in the sea must be ensured. e) Depending on the site, suitable and secure access for the purpose of observation or documentation in situ of underwater cultural heritage is encouraged for purposes of public information about heritage activities, the realization of the need for the protection of heritage. f) Any report or action, achieved on the basis of the convention about the protection of underwater cultural heritage, does not interfere with respect to national sovereignty or jurisdiction. The convention requires the participating governments to take measures for withdrawal from the territory of the underwater cultural heritage under existing international law. Participating governments must ensure they follow the conditions set by laws and conventions for purposes of the public good taking into account:

Every year the number of amateur underwater divers increases in our country and there is a need to exhibit the underwater historical cultural heritage in a stimulating and educational way, both on land and below water (including underwater viewing facilities for the public). Such exhibitions might include the following sites and situations: 1) Sunken towns; 2) Sunken vessels; 3)

1) The retention and study of underwater objects. 2) Distributed collections are restored as a unified whole. 3) Community access to this heritage; its exhibition and study for purposes of education.

31

SOMA 2010 Exhibitions dedicated to events, for example WWII. Specific remains around the Black Sea might include: a) The submerged towns of Taman; b) The antique harbour of Utrish; c) The story of the steamship ‘Admiral Nakhimov’; d) Submerged WWII material; e) Diaskuriya’s role in ancient navigation and trade; f) The steamship ‘Florida’.

in the scientific committee of the world confederation of underwater activity (SC CMAS). The specific work on collection and systematization of the requirements, which the representatives of different underwater-archaeological schools voiced was accomplished. The standard (in 2000), which is at present basis for conducting of training exercises on underwater archaeology, was as a result prepared and accepted. Within the framework the requirement of this standards in 2003 and 2004 happened the preparation of the first Russian instructors on underwater archaeology A. B. Belinskiy and S. M. Fazlullin. At present, there are already nine instructors on underwater archaeology in the country.

Competent control of the objects of underwater historical cultural heritage will require skilled specialists. Beginning from the 1960s, submariner volunteers worked on underwater archaeological works and were assigned to the expeditions for the general task of reconnaissance and excavations. Scientific centres of underwater archaeology gradually began to evolve. At the top of such group, as a rule, there were several professional archaeologists, who gave knowledge and information to the volunteers who participated in underwater archaeological expeditions. In the Soviet Union such groups were formed around the researches of V.D. Blavatskiy, K.K. Shilik, B.G. Peters., A.V. Okorokov, J.N. Taskaev, and other researchers.

With the introduction of standards on underwater archaeology, SC CMAS made it possible to begin training underwater archaeologist volunteers for the domestic underwater expeditions on regular basis. The goal-directed activity of scientific committee CRASA in the direction of taking root of these standards, in our country gradually brings its fruits. More than sixty people passed this course already and they were certified as “underwater archaeologist” or “advanced underwater archaeologist”. Through the specific domestic experience gained by teaching of this course, its own original program was formed.

At the beginning of the 1980s the centre of comprehensive underwater studies (directed by A. V. Okorokov) undertook to develop a formal curriculum on underwater archaeology. This programme consisted of: 1) The history of diving; 2) The history of domestic and foreign underwater archaeology; 3) The basis of the history of architecture; 4) Underwater reconnaissance of the monuments of history and culture; 5) Underwater excavations of monuments of history and culture. More than 100 students took this course but in the 1990s the domestic political situation halted the programme.

As a line break in the entire training program in underwater archaeology came about the convention of UNESCO for “protection of underwater cultural heritage” dated November 2, 2001. In this convention the concept “object of underwater cultural heritage” became one of the central concepts. Specifically, we place this concept as the basis of our program and approach and following UNESCO we consider underwater archaeology as the scientific direction, which studies underwater cultural heritage and having not only our specific subject of a study, but also our specific methods of the field and laboratory methods of study.

Fortunately At the beginning of the present decade the interest in underwater archaeology appeared again. Works in Issyk-Kul’, Kerch strait, Baltic region and in the internal regions of the European part of Russia were renewed. With the preparation of expedition to Issyk-Kul’ S. S. Prapor since 2003 conducts special preparation through underwater archaeology with participants in the expedition. The same work is being performed by the preparation of his expedition V.N. Taskaev. For their work they released methodic, which is actively used since the beginning of the 90’s. At present, work on training of volunteers for underwater- archaeological expeditions conducts A. Berezin, the student of V. N. Taskaev, in the Moscow underwater- archaeological club created by him. An underwater- archaeological expedition of museum hermitage was formed at the end of the 80’s, which works on the reservoirs of Smolenskaya Region. In this expedition, directed now by A. N. Mazurkevich, all participants in the underwater works have to pass special selection of fitness to carry out thin manipulations at the places of ancient pile settlements. According to the information given by the director, independent work under water are allowed on the average six of ten aspirants.

Cautious approach to the underwater cultural heritage – is the debt of all those, who obtained the possibility to penetrate the depths of seas and oceans. Just as on dry land, underwater objects of underwater cultural heritage are subject to extended action of the international and domestic laws, which consider the objects of cultural heritage as the bridges, which connect us with our past. The loss of any such bridge can lead to irreplaceable losses in the box of human knowledge. So the collectivization of the objects of underwater cultural heritage in reality leads to the excavation and extraction of objects from their historical context, which in turn leads to the distortion of the perception of object or its total loss. In the final analysis, all objects, raised from the bottom and not passed through the procedures of archaeological fixation become the random silent witnesses of historical eras. Any member of society, who carries out underwater diving, must adopt the rule that in case of detection of any object of underwater cultural and historic importance, he or she must report this into the relevant authorized organ with the executive power of the subject of the Russian Federation, for retention and protection of the objects of cultural heritage. The arbitrary

A question on participation of volunteers in the underwater-archaeological expeditions came about in 90’s 32

Sergei Fazlulin: Management of Underwater Historical Cultural Heritage withdrawal of the monument of cultural heritage, in full or in part, is forbidden by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

and begin the realization of the principles of managing and regulating underwater historical cultural heritage. Utilization of this information wealth is our debt. Further status of our country depends on our will and scope in the matter of the retention of underwater historical cultural heritage. There are all foundations for hope for the fact that our heritage we will not squander…

The “underwater archaeology” course is prepared in order to provide divers and amateurs of underwater diving knowledge and habit, necessary for the unconditional retention of the objects of underwater cultural heritage, the best understanding of marine environment and its riches, in order to use these goods, without destroying, but, preserving the underwater medium, in which we are only guests. As the basis of course is taken from the procedures of training underwater divers and instructors of the specialization “underwater archaeology” of scientific committee CMAS- Comité Of scientifique Of confédération Of mondiale of des Of activités Of subaquatiques, which position the requirements, presented in the federal law “about the objects of the cultural heritage (monuments of the history of culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation of №73-FZ”. Statements about the procedure of archaeological field works (archaelogical excavations and reconnaissance) and composition of the scientific current documentation, affirmed by the resolution of the academic council of the institute of archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences dated March 30, 2007 ; by the convention of UNESCO “about the protection of underwater cultural heritage” dated November 2, 2001.

The solution of the entire circle of problems is necessary for the correction of the created situation. In the opinion of the author, first priority should be given to following: 1. State program on the procedures of the underwater objects of cultural heritage, which foresees their development, traveling papers and setting to the state protection by the start in the united state list of the objects of cultural heritage. The realization of this program must be conducted by the state and regional organs of the protection of the objects of cultural heritage (Rosokhrankultura, regional committees and departments on the protection of monuments), by the specialized scientific agencies (RAN, Russian Academy of Science, Minkultury RF) with the attraction of underwater clubs and amateurish organizations. 2. Development of separate law about the archaeological heritage with the division about the objects of cultural heritage, which are located in the aqueous medium, or the introduction of corrections into the active law about the objects of the cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the nations of the Russian Federation on the regulation and managing of the questions, connected with the development, study,

The teaching of course “underwater archaeology” assumes mastering the fundamental principles of studies on underwater excavations (any physical action on the object of underwater cultural heritage) only after solving the questions of subsequent retention, study and conservation of the object. Straight physical contact with the object of underwater cultural heritage, outside established rules, must be considered as the disturbance of the historical integrity of object, which leads to irreplaceable loss of historical knowledge.

retention and the use of objects of cultural heritage, which are been located under water. Creation of special rules for conducting the underwater- archaeological and sea military history expeditions. 3. The creation of the specialized scientific research agency under the system of RAN Russian Academy of Science or the ministries of culture RF or subdivisions in the existing establishments, which will be dealing with questions regarding underwater archaeology.

“Underwater archaeology” course is the specialized course, which is recommended to professional historians for obtaining the knowledge and habits, who are to become realized specialists, suitable for the field of underwater studies.

4. Training scientific personnel in the region of underwater archaeology by the start in the university programs of the specialized courses. Organization of the backbone-type system of the instruction of adolescents, volunteers and specialists for the direction “underwater archaeology”.

Domestic archaeology has passed through the prolonged glorious way of development. The names of the remarkable enthusiasts are inscribed in its history for the works they performed. The current understanding of purposes and tasks of underwater archaeology as the scientific tool of the knowledge of underwater cultural heritage makes it possible to unify the separate procedures, developed and tested earlier. The approach proposed by us makes it possible to develop training courses both for the separate groups of volunteers and for the professionals, as the profile specialization of the departments of archaeology of classical universities.

5. Popularization of the objects of cultural heritage by publishing of scientific and popular literature, creation of films on underwater archaeology, organization of exhibitions and underwater museum exposures, conferences, development of underwater tourism. 6. Development of international collaboration in the region of sea archaeology for purposes of the attraction of advanced experience and investments into the Russian science and the culture.

Thus, at present, the beneficial scientific atmosphere has already been formed in the world, which helps to formulate 33

34

The place of the Dipylon Master in Attic Late Geometric pottery of the mid-8th century B.C. Konstantinos Galanakis

University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, Institute of Archaeology

Clay pottery before the 8th century B.C. is found almost everywhere in Attica but showed great power of invention in Athens. Many of these pots have been found in tombs and the bigger ones were made to stand as monuments over the graves. Many show obvious signs of earth wear and were made deliberately useless before their placing as grave monuments. The ancient custom of burying the dead with pots can be traced all over Italy, Sicily, east Mediterranean islands, Asia Minor and mainland Greece (Brann 1962: 111-13). Some of them, often less well-preserved, were dedicated as offerings to the gods or lesser divinities in Greek temples and shrines. Funerary vases constitute a unique type of pots but are fewer in number due to their exclusively votive purpose. The special character of their decoration and their size reveal their purpose and usage.

Around 770 B.C., towards the end of the Middle Geometric period, the painter of the grave krater New York 34.11.2. from Kerameikos presented for the first time an extended figure scene, a “prothesis”, where the deceased man lies in state on his bier surrounded by mourners. Additionally, there is a continuous frieze below showing an extended naval battle where warriors fight each other with a sword, spear and bow. It would not be an exaggeration if we assume that this scene actually prepared the ground for what was about to follow in Late Geometric art (Coldstream 1991: 46). In the Late Geometric period, the vessels became of great size – four or five feet high –and fitted with a pair of horizontal handles on each side so that two persons could lift them. The shapes offered wide areas to be covered by decoration and the motifs were arranged in a semiarchitectural manner in order to help out and follow the vase shape. The zone punctuated by the handles was normally given particular attention, while the zone at the bottom of the vessel was normally covered with heavy and thick black stripes which served as a balance to the “half-tone” decoration higher up on the vessel’s body. During the 8th century B.C., the appearance of stylized animals and birds reveals the wide range of innovations that were attained by the Geometric painters. It is the first time that we are able to discern different painters and individual styles by observing technical and decorative details in the overall composition. Unfortunately, the painters were unable to sign their pieces – Greece was still illiterate at the time – so their conventional names were manufactured by modern scholars. The funeral scenes of a dead man on his bier under a canopy surrounded by male and female mourners would finally appear more complex during the Late Geometric Ia period (760-735 B.C.), to which the Dipylon Master can be dated. The name derived from the Dipylon cemetery (a small aristocratic cemetery) which was initially excavated in 1871 and offered a superb group of monumental vessels which stood over the burials. The Dipylon Master with his consistent, personal manner of drawing can be characterized as the inventor of the rich Late Geometric style in Athens (Knigge 1988: 20-24, pl. 13).

Already in the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., there are few rare instances of Attic vases being used as grave monuments, much enlarged beyond their normal size for domestic use. With the beginning of the Early Geometric style (c. 900-850 B.C.), one finds only abstract motifs in what is commonly called the “Black Dipylon” style which is characterized by the extensive use of black varnish. In the Middle Geometric period (c. 850-770 B.C.), figural decoration makes its appearance: they are initially identical bands of animals (horses, stags, goats, geese, etc.) which alternate with the geometric bands. In parallel, the decoration becomes complicated and increasingly ornate; the painter feels reluctant to leave empty spaces and fills them with continuous meanders and swastikas. A perfect example can be seen on the exquisite Middle Geometric double-handled amphora NM A00216 by the “Athens Painter” from Kerameikos (Kourou 1997: 43-53). This phase is characterized by the “horror vacui” and will not cease until the end of the Geometric period. At the same time, the patterns become more complex and extended to all areas of the vessel. Then human figures were introduced in the ornamentation with images of chariot processions, battles, funerals and other scenes. After the Middle Geometric period, full figured decoration was introduced into their repertory. The figures are represented as simple dark silhouettes with profile heads and legs attached to the full frontal body (Whitley 1991: 47-48, argues that the earliest post-Mycenaean figural representations (10th century B.C.) are to be found outside Attica, on the “archer” vase and the “tree of life” krater from Lefkandi in Euboea). As painters became more interested in figural decoration, restriction of the Geometric style loosened and they were ready to invent new styles.

The scenes of mourning, seafaring and battle possibly led to a high demand for funerary pottery. Belly-handled amphorae, larger versions of the normal cremation urn for women, marked some rich female burials. The large pedestal kraters with chariot processions, fully armed warriors and scenes of fighting on land and sea were designed for men’s burials. For both types of monument, it was the custom to pierce a hole through the base before firing, so libations could be poured through the vessels

35

SOMA 2010 to the person buried below. The Dipylon Master elevated the funerary type of decoration into a grand-scale work of exceptional quality.

viewer to clearly understand the different scenes even by compressing several episodes together. The Dipylon Master used the silhouette technique in order to depict the human body. His human figures are sketchy silhouettes with a single eye occupying the face, shown in profile. The triangular body is shown from the front with broad shoulders and simple thick lines indicating the arms, either raised towards the head in a gesture of grief (in the “prothesis” and “ekphora” scenes) or carrying weapons like the representation of a warrior with the “Dipylon” shield in the krater fragments Louvre A547 (along with a mourner figure) and A558 (fig. 7) (Richter 1915: 36785, pls. XVII-XX, XXIII, 1). The legs are elongated with exaggerated thighs. It is possible that warrior figures are represented naked with their sword and dagger hanging from their middle section and holding one or two spears. Women are always dressed with their breasts indicated by two small lines (Boardman 2001: 34-5). In the “prothesis” and “ekphora” scenes, there is no attempt at realism: the body of the deceased and the chequered shroud are depicted as if viewed directly from above although the shroud seems to be held over the bier by two attendants like an awning (figs 1, 3). The difficulties of lending a sense of depth to the scene are circumvented by superimposing different planes, a solution that remained widespread until the discovery of perspective and the vanishing point. With his newly introduced elements, the Dipylon Master managed to overcome the old Geometric style with its constant repetitions that led to a final exhaustion. Attic Late Geometric pottery is probably the first fully fledged Hellenic figural decoration. Although figural decoration was not introduced by the Master himself, he was the first to combine successfully truly geometric elements with figures of canonical proportions and his innovations were later copied by other painters who became his heirs and established the Dipylon Workshop.

It is of some importance to describe the decoration of the vessels in order to emphasize the importance of the works of the Dipylon Master as the epitome of the Late Geometric style. The belly-handled amphora NM 804 in Athens (fig. 1) has a “prothesis” as its main scene (CVA I: pl. 8; on the “prothesis” and “ekphora” subject, see Ahlberg-Cornell 1971). The bier is surrounded by family, friends and professional mourners, seated or kneeling with their hands raised to their heads in a gesture of grief. A subsidiary frieze of grazing and “regardant” deer on the neck complement the main panel which is framed by linear decoration and various types of meander patterns. The Dipylon Master worked out artistically elaborate decorative patterns like bands of antithetical cross-hatched triangles enclosing a dotted-lozenge band, chequered lozenges and detailed depictions of animals. The belly-handled amphora NM 803 in Athens (fig. 2) is almost certainly another work of the Dipylon Master. It carries a mourning scene in its central panel but unfortunately it remains in a fragmentary state. It represents the “ekphora”, the next stage in the funeral ritual, where the body on the bier is conveyed towards the burial ground in a four-wheeled hearse. In this scene, two fragmentary horses are seen drawing a four-wheeled wagon with the bier resting on it. The deceased woman is surrounded by ten mourners in the rear panel, there are no animal friezes but several birds appear as filling ornaments under the wagon on the “ekphora” scene. The vessel’s body is mainly covered by linear decoration and various types of the meander pattern. The pedestal krater Louvre A517 (fig. 3) in the section between the handles shows again a “prothesis” scene, with the body of the deceased laid on a bier surrounded by family and friends, professional female mourners and warriors (fig. 4). In this scene, the Dipylon Master found a unique way to portray human activity: it presents the currently earliest known gesture where the two persons next to the bier seem to be raising the chequered “blanket” or shroud with their extended hands so that we can see below the deceased man, a gesture which does not previously occur anywhere else. The decorative scheme is completed by an escort of warriors in chariots making the vessel a consummate expression of the militaristic values of the Athenian nobility of the period (fig. 5). Under the handle of the krater, there is a warship with four rowers on it and fish in the sea below (fig. 6). Probably the scene was associated with an extended naval battle which was depicted on the reverse side of the vase and has not been preserved. Boardman suggested that the extended naval battles are in fact indications of the marine trading methods of Attica at the time and not representations of dangerous episodes during the Attic colonial migration (Boardman 2001: 37). In any case, the Dipylon Master in this krater assimilates a “bird’s eye” view of the actions, allowing the

The restored splendid neck-handled “Elgin” amphora (British Museum GR 2004.0927.1) is certainly a work of the Dipylon Workshop, if not of the Master himself due to the remarkable skill and precision of its painting (fig. 8). The surface is covered with an intricate web of half-tone decoration. It has elaborately painted geometric decoration in black on a buff background combined with snakes decorating the handles and bands of water birds filling the narrow zone below the rim. An elaborate “tapestry” pattern fills the widest zone around the middle, a chequerboard motif decorates the shoulder, and an elongated double meander emphasizes the elegant neck. The amphora was probably used to hold wine at the funerary feast of a wealthy individual and then placed in his tomb perhaps along with some smaller vases (Williams 2009: no. 15). In the years that followed, the apprentices in the Dipylon Workshop continued fervently the advanced technique and decoration of the Master. On the neck amphora Munich 6080 (Boardman 2001: 47) with friezes of grazing deer, the Dipylon Workshop shows its excellence in decorative manners by using varieties of the meander as 36

Konstantinos Galanakis: The place of the Dipylon Master in Attic Late Geometric pottery the sole geometric ornament on the vessel (fig. 9). The oinochoe NM 152 with a slender grazing deer, forelegs of horses and meanders as filling ornaments, follows the Dipylon Master’s tradition and should be correlated to the Athens Agora fragments P10664 depicting remains of a “prothesis” scene and a chariot procession. Both fragments are often attributed to the Master himself, the first by Kahane (Kahane 1940: 464-82) and the second by Brann (Brann 1961: 93-146). Most notably, the Hirschfeld Painter and his workshop went on to become around 750735 B.C. the most prolific imitator of the Dipylon Master and his workshop by producing the elaborate terracotta pedestal kraters NM 990 in Athens (Mannack 2002: 76) and New York 14.130.14. (Marwitz 1961: 39-48, no. 29, 45; Picón, Hemingway, et al. 2007: 413, no. 29), both with very lively “ekphora” and “prothesis” scenes respectively but with stiff and frozen chariot processions (fig. 10). On the Hirschfeld Workshop’s belly amphora in Basel, the funeral scene has become now a monotonous version of the Dipylon Master’s “protheses” (fig. 11).

handled amphora which died out before the Late Geometric I period. The Master insisted on rounded forms in spite of the period’s general spirit which preferred straight profiles and small proportions. His innovative program included the enlarging of the two most favoured vessel shapes, the belly-handled amphora and the pedestal krater. He transformed them into gigantic vessels with monumental dimensions as funerary vessels and grave monuments. The Dipylon Master succeeded in sweeping away the Middle Geometric dark ground style by applying the “half-tone” decoration which covered the whole surface of the vessel (figs. 1, 8). The commonest decorative element, the meander, played no longer a dominant role, while the ornamental wealth did not obscure the underlying shape. It was he who devised the famous “tapestry” design that included a row of large separate dots, a chain of tangential dots, sigmas, tall single zigzags, cross-hatched triangles and combinations of all the above. He continued to apply ornaments that had been already adopted in earlier periods like the interlocking rows of hatched equilateral triangles, the vertical wavy lines and the chequered zones. The Master was surely an innovator but he did not reject the tradition that had started before him. He managed to give a breath of life to the old style which turned out to have been a mere repetition of styles, shapes and plain figural decoration without any varieties. His monumental vases are always covered with bands of decorative motifs without the fear of monotony and without the risk of obscuring the underlying shape. His figures are delineated, taller than the Middle Geometric ones, and the upper part of their body becomes a tall isosceles triangle. The position of the arms is usually indicative of the activities of the participants (as described above in the fragmentary pedestal krater Louvre A517, fig. 4). The peculiar angle at their waist and elbows indicate mourning gestures and the fingers are sometimes painted very expressively. Men are depicted mainly in martial scenes, most of the times naked, and women are mostly draped. Animals, especially horses, are delineated and their use is sometimes decorative except when they appear to draw chariots (fig 5). His overall compositions appear in fact more complex and carefully studied than they seem to be at first sight. With the works of the Dipylon Master, the first consistent figural style appeared consisting of sophisticated funeral scenes full of stability and vigor and perfectly assimilated into their geometric stylistic background. The Master represents the first link of an unbroken line that ends with the Analatos Painter (700-675 B.C.) and is usually termed as the “classical tradition”. A parallel artistic movement is represented by the works of other, lesser, local craftsmen influenced by the main stream but not influencing it (the local styles are described in detail in Coldstream 1968). It is obvious that the Master was the first to introduce a consistent and rich style in pottery which definitely influenced the local trends in Athens at the time.

The artistic tradition before the Dipylon Master consisted of painters executing mechanical repetitions of linear geometric ornaments and decorative patterns. The Dipylon Master perfected ornaments like the dotted lozenge and the “sunburst” motif, and his artistic value is confirmed by a sure brush that covers the whole surface of the vessel. Earlier motifs like the wheel consisting of concentric circles with central crosses -probably the commonest panel filler during the Middle Geometric period- were replaced in the Late Geometric period by the meticulous “Dipylon wheel” which probably represents the sun disc. Additional symbols were often taken at face value: on the monumental Dipylon vases birds are primarily the inhabitants of “heaven” while snakes are the guardians of the underworld, both representing the complementary forces of life and death. The Dipylon Master managed to paint the symbols more carefully on the body of his masterpieces with a craftsmanship almost flawless. The Dipylon Workshop followed the main aspects of its Master’s craft (and also his mannerisms) but it seemed to prefer a combination of his types and the innovations of subsequent Late Geometric painters. Their productions are characterized not by technical discipline but mainly by narrative power in a period when the repertoire of mythological subjects was gradually increasing. After the peak of the Dipylon Master’s career, some of the commonest shapes, like the belly-handled amphora for instance, died out. The Dipylon Master offered a final and glorious lease of life to a shape that was already almost obsolescent in his time. The Dipylon Master was the inventor of three new shapes: the pitcher, the giant oinochoe and the high-rimmed bowl (the latter with an earlier parentage as a variation of the Middle Geometric skyphos). His oinochoai with the taut, spherical body crowned by a tall straight neck was a shape inherited directly from the Middle Geometric lekythosoinochoe. The pitcher with rounded profile and thinner body had also roots in the past, from the old shoulder-

In general terms, the rest of the Attic Late Geometric pottery, although it shows new elements that differed from the Middle Geometric tradition, seems to be without careful 37

SOMA 2010 Coldstream, J. N. (2008) Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology. Updated 2nd ed. Exeter, Bristol Phoenix (first published in 1968 by London, Methuen). Davison, J. M. (1961) Attic Geometric Workshops. Yale Classical Studies, 16, New Haven, Yale University Press. Knigge, U. (1988) Der Kerameikos von Athen. Führung durch Ausgrabungen und Geschichte. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen. (Greek translation [1990]: Ο Κεραμεικός της Αθήνας. Ιστορία-ΜνημείαΑνασκαφές. Athens, Krene Publications). Kourou, N. (1997) A New Geometric Amphora in the Benaki Museum: The Internal Dynamics of an Attic Style. IN Palagia, O. ed., Greek Offerings. Essays in Greek Art in Honour of John Boardman. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 43-53. Lemos, I. S. (2002) The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries B.C. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mannack, T. (2002) Griechische Vasenmalerei. Eine Einführung. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Marwitz, H. (1961) Ein attisch-geometrischer Krater in New York. Antike Kunst, 4: 44, 39-48, no. 29, 45. Picón, C. A., Hemingway, S., Lightfoot, C., Mertens, J. R., Milleker, E. J. (2007) Art of the Classical World in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven and London, Yale University Press. Richter, G. M. A. (1915) Two Colossal Athenian Geometric or “Dipylon” Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. American Journal of Archaeology, 19 (OctoberDecember), 367-85, pls. XVII-XX, XXIII, 1. Schweitzer, B. (1969) Die geometrische Kunst Griechenlands: Frühe Formenwelt im Zeitalter Homers (Unter Mitarb. von Jochen Briegleb hrsg. von Ulrich Hausmann.). Köln, Du Mont Schauberg. Snodgrass, A. M. (2000) The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B.C. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press (first published in 1971). Whitley, J. (1991) Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. The Changing Face of a Pre-Literate Society 1100700 B.C. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Williams, D. (2009) Masterpieces of Classical Art. London, British Museum Press.

application and with hasty and careless brushstrokes caused by the many orders that craftsmen had to fill. This geometric routine consisted of exact patterns and shapes with minor variations and is well represented by the Athens Agora Well Groups in Agoraios Kolonos, Areios Pagos and Peristyle Square. Their ceramic productions consist of Late Geometric pottery with panels, unit rather than frieze ornaments, and decorative animals. These products differ from the works of the Dipylon Master who probably may have worked at the same period after his apprenticeship in a Middle Geometric workshop. It has become apparent that the Dipylon Master was an innovator who improved many of the aspects and features that characterized the preceding Middle Geometric pottery. He did not reject the tradition that had started long time before him but he chose to apply different arrangements. He succeeded in improving many decorative patterns and he was the inventor of new shapes and motifs. The first figural scenes like “prothesis” and “ekphora” (figs 1, 2, 4), the battle and martial scenes with their stylized design (figs 5, 6, 7), show how curiously differentiated from actual observation was the geometric concept of the human figure at the time. The Dipylon Master has earned an exceptional position in the history of Greek pottery as an artist who showed great respect to tradition but managed to innovate in some crucial factors in order to transform his pieces of art to perfection. The earliest of the great Greek vase painters was active in the Kerameikos area from 770 to 750 B.C. and was followed by his successful workshop. The painted designs by his hands are so perfectly adapted to the shapes of the vases that we may infer that he was both the potter and the painter. So far, some fifty vases have been attributed to his workshop including several amphorae, kraters and oinochoai of large dimensions. We expect to find many more in the future.

Bibliography Ahlberg-Cornell, G. (1971) Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 32, Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag. Brann, E. T. H. (1961) Late Geometric Well-Groups from the Athenian Agora. Hesperia, 30, 93-146. Brann, E. T. H. (1962) The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. VIII: Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery: Mid 8th Century to Late 7th Century B.C. Princeton (N.J.), American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Boardman, J. (2001) Early Greek Vase Painting. Greek translation. Athens, Kardamitsa Publications. Coldstream, J. N. (1977) Geometric Greece. London, Ernest Benn. Coldstream, J. N. (1991) The Geometric Style: Birth of the Picture. IN Rasmussen, T. and Spivey, N. eds, Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge University Press, 37-57.

Sources of figures Fig. 1 available from

Figs 3, 4, 5 and 6 available from

Fig. 9 Boardman 2001: 47, fig. 48 Fig. 10 available from < h t t p : / / w w w. m e t m u s e u m . o r g / w o r k s _ o f _ a r t / collection_database/greek_and_roman_art/ terracotta_krater_hirschfeld_workshop/objectview. aspx?collID=13&OID=130009382>

Fig. 7 available from

Fig. 8 available from

Fig. 3: Pedestal krater by the Dipylon Master, Louvre A517, Late Geometric Ia, 760-750 B.C., Louvre Museum, Paris Fig. 1: Belly-handled amphora by the Dipylon Master, NM 804, Late Geometric Ia, 760-750 B.C., National Archaeological Museum, Athens

Fig. 4: “Prothesis” scene on pedestal krater by the Dipylon Master, Louvre A517, Late Geometric Ia, 760750 B.C., Louvre Museum, Paris Fig. 2: Belly-handled amphora by the Dipylon Master, NM 803, Late Geometric Ia, 760-750 B.C., National Archaeological Museum, Athens 39

SOMA 2010

Fig. 5: Chariot procession scene on pedestal krater by Dipylon Master, Louvre A517, Late Geometric Ia, 760-750 B.C., Louvre Museum, Paris

the

Fig. 8: The “Elgin” amphora by the Dipylon Master, GR 2004,0927.1, Late Geometric Ia, 760-750 B.C., British Museum, London

Fig. 6: Warship scene on the pedestal krater by the Dipylon Master, Louvre A517, Late Geometric Ia, 760750 B.C., Louvre Museum, Paris

Fig. 7: Mourners and warrior with “Dipylon” shield on a fragment of the krater Louvre A547 by the Dipylon Master, Louvre Museum, Paris

Fig. 9: Neck amphora by the Dipylon Workshop, Late Geometric Ia, Munich 6080, Staatliche Antikensammlungen Munich 40

Konstantinos Galanakis: The place of the Dipylon Master in Attic Late Geometric pottery

Fig. 10: Pedestal krater by the Hirschfeld Painter, New York 14.130.14., Late Geometric Ib, 750-735 B.C., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Fig. 11: Belly-handled amphora by the Hirschfeld Painter Workshop, Late Geometric Ib, after 750 B.C., Antikemuseum, Basel

41

42

Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians of the Upper Tigris region: New evidence from the excavations at Zeviya Tivilki (Kumru Tarlası) Ahmet Gormus, A. Tuba Okse and Erkan Atay

Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey Kocaeli University, Turkey Archaeological Museum of Mardin, The Ilısu Dam Construction Area Archaeological Project Coordination Centre, Turkey

Introduction

2010b). The rough stone foundations and the large amount of stone debris enable the reconstruction of a singlestoreyed building complex constructed of stone walls.

The Upper Tigris region is bordered by the south-eastern Taurus Mountains to the north and the Mardin Massif from the south. The Iron Age cultural history of the highlands of Eastern Anatolia is characterized by an Early Iron Age culture producing handmade pottery, and the wheel-made standard ware of the Urartian kingdom. The northern Mesopotamian lowlands to the south were occupied by Aramaic tribes and were later annexed to the New Assyrian empire. The Upper Tigris region is a transition zone between these regions and was the domain of the New Assyrian empire from the 10th century BC.

The postholes and padstones found in several rooms were used eventually for wooden posts supporting the roof, and stone doorjambs were found by the doors of several rooms, indicating the existence of closed units. This complex probably had composite functions comprising habitation, atelier, storage or the keeping of livestock. No animal bones were found in the building complex, only a small amount of vetch discovered in one of the rooms point to the consumption of legumes in the diet.

The Iron Age archaeology of the Upper Tigris region is marked by a series of field surveys and salvage excavations undertaken within the reservoir area of the Ilısu Dam over the last two decades. Intensive surveys undertaken within the construction area of the Ilısu Dam between Şırnak and Mardin brought to light 19 archaeological sites with similar ceramic assemblages in an area of ca. 1600 ha (Ökse et al. 2008; 2009a; 2009b). From half of the sites, both Early Iron Age and New Assyrian sherds were collected; four sites contained only Early Iron Age and two sites only New Assyrian pottery. These sites 2-4km apart, pointing to the existence of farming communities (Schachner 2003: 160; Radner and Schachner 2004: 118), comparable with the contemporary sites located at similar distances around Salat Tepe and Gre Dimse, and those in northern Jezirah during the 9th-6th centuries BC (Wilkinson 1995: 143-5, 151-7, note 38-9).

The pottery collected from the building is composed of handmade Early Iron Age vessels, some with horizontal grooves, and handmade vessels resembling the local production of New Assyrian standard pottery, as well as a few New Assyrian wheel-made common ware vessels (Figure 3: 2, 5-7). At the eastern corner of the building, 21 pot graves including cremated bones were placed into a mortared wall. The urns were manufactured by hand in the New Assyrian style, and handmade miniature pots in the local Early Iron Age style were found in some graves (Figure 3: 1, 3, 4). The grave goods included 69 iron artefacts composed mostly of knives, a chisel, arrow heads, spear heads, javelin heads, dagger, button, bracelet, fibula, pendants, a piece of guard chain, pins and beads (Figure 4). Two cylinder seals from the burials were carved in New Assyrian style. Cremation burials in eastern Anatolia are dated to the Urartian period (Çilingiroğlu 1991: 29-31; Derin 1994), those from northern Syria (Langenegger et al. 1950: 15963, 366) and the Middle Euphrates (Woolley 1939-40: 1137; Moorey 1980; Al-Bahloul et al. 2005: 997-1048) to the 10th-8th centuries BC. This tradition is uncommon but it also appears sporadically at New Assyrian sites in northern Mesopotamia (Haller 1954: 52-3; Kreppner 2008: 264) and in the Upper Tigris region; cremation is registered in Ziyarettepe Level L4b (Matney 2009: 44-6, 48, fig. 6-7, 16) and Kavuşan Höyük (Kozbe 2010).

Recent salvage excavations within the construction area of the Ilısu dam have broadened our information on the Iron Age history of the Upper Tigris region, in addition to the data obtained from the excavations and surveys between Diyarbakır and Batman (Parker 2003: 532-47; Kozbe 2006). The Excavations Salvage excavations were undertaken at Zeviya Tivilki (Kumru Tarlası), located about 10km to the north-east of Midyat (Mardin Province; Figure 1), at a distance of ca. 2km from the west bank of the Tigris. A singlephased building complex covering an area of 2565m2 is constructed on the bedrock (Figure 2) (Ökse et al. 2010a;

The knives are similar to those found in eastern Anatolian Early Iron Age graves (Sevin and Kavaklı 1996: 34-5) and in a tomb at Aşağı Salat Tepe (Şenyurt 2006: 700-4) from the latest period of the New Assyrian empire. The

43

SOMA 2010 arrowheads have close parallels at Anatolian (Przeworski 1939, 151, 193-4, Taf. XII: 5), New Assyrian (Matney et al. 2007: 72) and Urartian sites (Yalçıklı 2006, Taf. I: 10, 18). Triangular fibulae are typical for the Near East in 8th-7th centuries BC (Przeworski 1939, 68, Taf. VIII: 9, 11; Pedde 2001: 488, 492, fig. 2, 6); several examples are known from New Assyrian (Matney 2009: 46, fig. 8c) and Urartian sites (Köroğlu and Konyar 2005: 31, 34).

Subnat headwaters at Babil/Cizre and in Tushan/Kurh (probably Üçtepe). The stelae from the Subnat headwaters relate to Tiglatpileser II (965-933 BC) and Assurnasirpal II (882 BC), and a stele of Tukulti Ninurta II (889-884 BC) is recorded by his son Assurnasirpal II; the Tushan/ Kurh stelae are linked to Assurnasirpal II and his son Salmanassar III (853 BC) (Börker-Klähn 1982: 180-7; Erkanal and Erkanal 1989; Köroğlu 1998: 79, 89, fig. 18).

The handmade local pottery is identical to the eastern Anatolian Early Iron Age wares (Güneri 2002; Şenyurt 2006; Belli and Konyar 2003: 30-7, 55, 72, 92) dating to 1300-850 BC, from the Upper Euphrates region (Hauptmann 1976: Abb. 54; Winn 1980: Pl. 15, Bartl 2001) and the Upper Tigris region (Köroğlu 1998: 37, 401, fig. 16: 2, 13; Karg 2001: fig. 9; Schachner 2002: 24-6, Abb. 14; 2003: 158; 2004: 506; Matney et al. 2002: 66-7, fig. 24; 2004: 387; 2009: 56, fig. 17; Parker et al. 2004: 556; Parker and Swartz Dodd 2005: 81; Kozbe 2006; 2008; Laneri et al. 2006: 155, fig. 4; Ökse and Görmüş 2006: 142; 2009). The handmade vessels manufactured in New Assyrian style resemble the New Assyrian standard pottery dated to the 8th-7th centuries BC (Curtis, 1989: fig. 33: 180-1, 37: 227-40, 43: 305; Haller, 1954, Taf. 30; Reiche, 1999: 237, fig. 10g, 12c; Matney et al. 2007: 71; Lumsden 1999: 13; Sievertsen 2010: 662), such as the common coarse ware named as the ‘Local New Assyrian Pottery’ in Üçtepe (Köroğlu 1998: 40-1). The stamped decoration on coarse jars is registered in 6th-century BC contexts in the Middle Tigris region (Oates 1959: 137; Mallowan 1966: 462, Abb. 378; Curtis et al. 1993: 30, fig. 27: 4).

The pottery from the Early Iron Age graves from the Van region is dated to the 9th-7th centuries BC, according to its presence also in later contexts (Köroğlu 2003: 239; Köroğlu and Konyar 2005: 33-6), together with the Urartian red slipped ware (Erdem 2009). The Early Iron Age pottery is found together with the New Assyrian wheelmade ware in Level L4b in Ziyarettepe dating to the 8th7th centuries BC (Matney et al. 2009: 54-6, fig. 14, 17), and in the earliest sub-period of the Iron Age sequence at Hirbemerdon (Laneri et al. 2008: 180). This ware seems to disappear gradually during the the New Assyrian period at Kavuşan Höyük (Kozbe 2006: 497-8). The New Assyrian forms as handmade vessels point to a local production of pottery both in traditional and New Assyrian forms, so, the site seems to have been occupied by local populations under the reign of the New Assyrian empire, not by Assyrians themselves. The Tigris valley between the Kassiyari (Mardin) Mountains and the Cudi Dağ seem to have been used by the Assyrians for access to the north. The Upper Tigris region seems to have been a dominant province of the Assyrian empire since the middle of the 10th century BC, and the sites registered within the construction area of the dam are small rural settlements occupied by local people.

Discussion

Acknowledgements

The Early Iron Age is dated to 1150-950 BC in the Upper (Bartl 2001: 391-9), to 1000-800 BC in the Lower Euphrates region (Müller 1999: 404). The existence of the characteristic Early Iron Age pottery in the Upper Tigris region shows the expansion of the culture of Eastern Anatolian highlands towards the south after the fall of the Middle Assyrian Kingdom. According to the data from Giricano, the beginning of this ware in the Upper Tigris region is dated to the end of the Middle Assyrian Period, ca. 1050 BC, and continues into the New Assyrian period (Schachner 2003: 158; Roaf and Schachner 2005: 116, 120; Kozbe 2008; Parker 2003: 549).

Salvage excavations are conducted under the co-direction of the authors and Nihat Erdoğan, director of the Museums in Mardin. Fieldwork, documentation and recording are carried out by Murat Eroğlu, Ahmet Güneş, Yeliz Tan, Aziz Ayhan Bayraktar, Sibel Torpil, Adem Öncü, Adem Yücel, Başar Yücel, Mehmet Boz, Yücel Erdaş, Vildan Gürdil, Hüsniye Levent, Zerrin Hamioğlu and Burcu Kaçmaz. A detailed paper on the results of the excavations entitled ‘Zeviya Tivilki: An Early Iron Age-Late Assyrian Building and Graves at the Construction Area of the Ilısu Dam’ was read by E. Atay and V. Gürdil at the 7th Symposium on Anatolian Iron Ages in Edirne, Turkey.

Subria is localized within the Upper Tigris region as a border zone between Assyria and Urartu (Kessler 1995: 59-62, fig. 1). The re-appearance of Assyrians in the Upper Tigris region is documented by several rock carvings and stele of the New Assyrian kings. Reliefs and cuneiform inscriptions of Salmanassar III (858-824 BC), recording his Nairi campaigns in 852 and 844 BC in the Birkleyn caves at the source of the Tigris (Börker-Klähn 1982: 177, 187-8; Schachner and Radner 2004), show a New Assyrian phase from the 9th century BC. Other documents found in the Upper Tigris region recording the Nairi campaigns of New Assyrian kings include several stelae found at the

Bibliography Al-Bahloul, K., A. B. and L. d’Alfonso (2005) Area H, The Iron Age Cremation Cemetery. IN: L. Bachelot and F. M. Fales eds., Tell Shiukh Fawkani 1994-1998, Paduva, Sargon, 997-1048. Bartl, K. (2001) Eastern Anatolia in the Early Iron Age. IN: J. Eichman and H. Parzinger eds., Migration und Kulturtransfer: der Wandel vorder-und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. 44

Ahmet Gormus, A. Tuba Okse and Erkan Atay: Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 6, Bonn, Habelt, 383-410. Belli, O. and E. Konyar (2003) Early Iron Age Fortresses and Necropolises in Eastern Anatolia. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Börker-Klähn, J. (1982) Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und Vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen, 4, Mainz, Zabern. Çilingiroğlu, A. (1991) The Early Iron Age at Dilkaya. IN: A. Çilingiroğlu and D. French eds., The Proceedings of the Second Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 13, Oxford, Oxbow, 29-38. Curtis, J. (1989) Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij, British Museum Western Asiatic Excavations, I, London, The Trustees of the British Museum. Curtis, J., D. Collon and A. Green (1993) British Museum Excavations at Nimrud and Balawat in 1989. Iraq, 55, 1-37. Derin, Z. (1994) The Urartian Cremation Jars in Van and Elazığ Museums. IN: A. Çilingiroğlu and D. H. French eds., The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 16, Ankara, Rekmay, 49-62. Erdem, A. Ü. (2009) Van Gölü Havzasında Bulunan Demir Çağı Yivli Çanak Çömleğinin Urartu Kalelerindeki Varlığı. IN: H. Sağlamtimur et al. eds., Yukarı Denizin Kıyısında Urartu Krallığı’na Adanmış Bir Hayat. Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 299-307. Erkanal, H. and A. Erkanal. (1989) Archäologischer Überblick über die Provinz Mardin. IN: K. Emre et al. ed., Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 129-34. Güneri, S. (2002) Cultural Connections between Anatolia and Caucasus-Central Anatolia During the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age in the Light of the 1987 Sos Höyük Excavations and North-eastern Turkey Surveys, Carried out Between 1985-1997. Anatolia Antiqua, X, 11-77. Haller, A. (1954) Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, 65, Berlin, Harrasowitz. Hauptmann, H. (1976) Ausgrabungen in Norşun Tepe, 1972. IN: Keban Project 1972 Activities, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 41-100. Karg, N. (2001) First Soundings at Gre Dimse 1999. IN: N. Tuna and J. Velibeyoğlu eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1999, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 643-670. Kessler, K. (1995) Šubria, Urartu and Aššur. Topographical Questions around the Tigris Sources. IN: M. Liverani ed., Neo-Assyrian Geography. Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Quaderni di Geografia Storica, 5, Padova, Sargon, 55-67. Kozbe, G. (2006) Çanak Çömlek Gelenekleri Işığında Geç Tunç Çağı Sonundan Geç Demir Çağı Sonuna dek

Yukarı Dicle Bölgesinde Assur Varlığı. IN: A. ErkanalÖktü et al. eds., Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections, Istanbul, Homer, 496-509. Kozbe, G. (2008) The Transition from Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in the Upper Tigris Region, Southeastern Anatolia: Identifying Changes in Pottery. IN: K. S. Rubinson and A. Sagona eds., Ceramics in Transitions: Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 27, Leuven, Peeters, 291-322. Kozbe, G. (2010) The Neo-Assyrian Burials Recovered at Kavuşan Höyük in the Upper Tigris Region. IN: P. Matthiae et al. eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, Wiesbaden, Harrasowitz, 349-356. Köroğlu, K. (1998) Üçtepe I-Yeni Kazı ve Yüzey Bulguları Işığında Diyarbakır-Üçtepe ve Çevresinin Yeni Assur Dönemi Tarihi Çoğrafyası, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Köroğlu, K. (2003) The Transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Eastern Anatolia. IN: B. Fischer et al. eds. Identifying Changes: the Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Istanbul, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 231-244. Köroğlu, K. and E. Konyar (2005) Van Gölü Havzası’nda Erken Demir Çağı Problemi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 119, 25-38. Kreppner, F. J. (2008) Eine Außergewöhnliche Brand bestattungssitte in Dur-Katlimmu während der ersten Hälfte des ersten Jt. v. Chr. IN: D. Bonatz et al. eds., Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 263-276. Laneri, N., A. D’agostino, Mark Schwartz, Stefano Valentini and G. Pappalardo (2006) A Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Excavations at Hirbemerdon Tepe, Southeastern Turkey, 2005. Anatolica, 32, 153-189. Laneri, N., M. Schwartz, J. Ur, S. Valentini, A. D’agostino, R. Berthon and M. M. Halde (2008) The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project 2006-2007. A Preliminary Report on the Middle Bronze Age “Architectural Complex” and the Survey of the Site Catchment Area. Anatolica, 34, 177-240. Langenegger, F., K. M. and R. Naumann (1950) Die Bauwerke. IN: M. F. von Oppenheim, Tell Halaf II. Berlin, de Gruyter. Lumsden, S. (1999) Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Nineveh. IN: A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche eds., Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, 10, Münster, Ugarit, 3-15. Mallowan, M. E. L. (1966) Nimrud and its Remains, I, London, Collins. Matney, T., M. Roaf, J. McGinnis and H. McDonald (2002) Archaeological Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2000 and 2002. Anatolica, 28, 47-89. Matney, T., M. Roaf, J. McGinnis and H. McDonald (2004) Ziyaret Tepe Excavations, 2001. IN: N. Tuna and J.

45

SOMA 2010 Öztürk eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1999, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 387-425. Matney, T., L. Rainville, K. Köroğlu, A. Keskin, T. Vorderstrasse, N. Özkul Fındık and A. Donkin (2007) Report on Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2006 Season. Anatolica, 33, 23-74. Matney, T., T. Greenfield, B. Hartenberger, A. Keskin, K. Köroğlu, J. MacGinnis, W. Monroe, L. Rainville, M. Shepperson, T. Vorderstrasse and D. Wicke (2009) Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe 2007-2008. Anatolica, 35, 37-84. Moorey, P. R. S. (1980) Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Höyük, near Carchemish. British Archaeological Reports International Series 87, Oxford, BAR Publishing. Müller, U. (1999) Die Eisenzeitliche Keramik des Lidar Höyük. IN: A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche eds., Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-eastern Anatolia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, 10, Münster, Ugarit, 403-434. Oates, J. (1959) Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Iraq, 21, 130-146. Ökse, A. T. and A. Görmüş (2006) Excavations at Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region: Stratigraphical Sequence and Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Seasons. Akkadica, 127, 119-49. Ökse, A. T. and A. Görmüş (2009) Nomadic Way of Life in the Early Iron Age: A Study on the Evidence from Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region. IN: H. Oniz ed., Proceedings of the XIIth Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, British Archaeological Reports, Int. Series S1909, Oxford, BAR Publishing, 165-172. Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş, E. Atay and S. Torpil (2008) Archaeology affected by the Ilısu Dam in Turkey. Antiquity, 82/317. Available from: Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş, E. Atay, Y. Muluk, M. Eroğlu, S. Torpil, A. A. Bayraktar, Y. Tan, N. Balkan Atlı, L. Astruc and N. Kayacan (2009a) Ilısu Barajı Inşaat Sahası Yüzey Araştırmasında Belirlenen Arkeolojik Alanlar. TÜBA-Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, 7, 71-94. Ökse, A. T., E. Atay, M. Eroğlu and Y. Tan (2009b) Yukarı Dicle Havzasının Mardin ile Şırnak Arasında Kalan Bölümünün Tunç Çağları ve Demir Çağları Kültürel Yapısı. TÜBA-AR, 12, 25-48. Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and E. Atay (2010a) A rural Iron Age Site at Zeviya Tivilki in the Construction Zone of the Ilısu Dam, South-eastern Turkey. Antiquity, 84/323. Available from:

Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and E. Atay (2010b) Ilısu Barajı Ilısu Köyü ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırması 2008, IN: 27. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 333-349, Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.

Parker, B. J. (2003) Archaeological Manifestations of Empire: Assyria’s Imprint on Southeastern Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology, 107/4, 525-557. Parker, B. J. and L. Swartz-Dodd (2005) The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project, a Preliminary Report from the 2002 Field Season, Anatolica, 31, 69-110. Parker, B. J., A. Creekmore and L. Swartz Dodd (2004) The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Synthesis of the Cultural History of Kenan Tepe. IN: N. Tuna et al. eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2001, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 547-602. Pedde, F. (2001) Development and Expansion of Near Eastern Fibulae in the Iron Age. IN: J. Eichman and H. Parzinger eds., Migration und Kulturtransfer: der Wandel vorder-und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6, Bonn, Habelt, 485-496. Przeworski, Stefan (1939) Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens in der Zeit von 1500-700 vor Chr. Rohstoffe, Technik, Produktion, Leiden, Brill. Radner, K. and A. Schachner (2004) Das Mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Girican/Dunnu-sa-Uzibi, Subartu XIV, Turhout, Brepols. Reiche, A. (1999) Iron Age Pottery From Tell Rad Shaqrah (North-East Syria). IN: A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche eds., Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia, Münster, Ugarit, 231-259. Roaf, M. and A. Schachner (2005) The Bronze Age to Iron Age Transition in the Upper Tigris Region: New Information from Ziyarettepe and Giricano. IN: A. Çilingiroğlu and G. Darbyshire eds., Anatolian Iron Ages 5, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 31, London, British Institute at Ankara, 115-23. Schachner, A. (2002) Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Giricano (Diyarbakır/Türkei) 2000. IN: N. Tuna et al. eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000. Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 549-613. Schachner, A. (2003) From the Bronze to the Iron Age: Identifying Changes in the Upper Tigris Region: The Case of Gricano. IN: B. Fischer, et al. eds., Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Istanbul, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 151-63. Schachner, A. (2004) Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen in Giricano, 2001. IN: N. Tuna et al. eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2001, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, 505-547. Schachner, A. and K. Radner (2004) Birkleyn 2004. Available from [Accessed 21 March, 2010]

46

Ahmet Gormus, A. Tuba Okse and Erkan Atay: Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians Sevin, V. and E. Kavaklı (1996) Van/Karagündüz: An Early Iron Age Cemetery, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Sievertsen, U. (2010) Iron Age Pottery Inventories from the New Excavations at Tell Halaf (2006-2007). IN: P. Matthiae et al. eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 651-668. Şenyurt, S. Y. (2006a) Büyükardıç, Doğu Anadolu’da Bir Erken Demir Çağı Tepe Yerleşmesi. Bakü-TiflisCeyhan Ham Petrol Boru Hattı Projesi Arkeolojik Kurtarma Kazıları Yayınları, 2, Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi Arkeolojik Çevre Değerleri Araştırma Merkezi. Şenyurt, S. Y. (2006b) Aşağı Salat Tepe’den Bir Yeni Assur Mezarı (M-29). IN: A. Erkanal-Öktü et al. eds., Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections, Ankara, Homer, 697-704.

Wilkinson, T. J. (1995) Late Assyrian Settlement Geography in Upper Mesopotamia. IN M. Liverani ed., Neo-Assyrian Geography. Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Quaderni di Geografia Storica, 5, Roma, Padova, Sargon, 139-160. Winn, M. M. (1980) The Early Iron Age pottery, IN: M. N. van Loon ed., Korucutepe: Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir Eastern Anatolia (1968-1978), 3, Oxford, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 155-75. Woolley, C. L. (1939-40) The Iron Age Graves of Carchemish. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 26, 11-37. Yalçıklı, D. (2006) Eisenzeitliche Pfeilspitzen aus Anatolien. IN: Pfeilspitzen, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 128, Bonn, Habelt, 213-281.

Figure 1. Location of Zeviya Tivilki (Drawing: Erkan Atay and Murat Eroğlu)

47

SOMA 2010

Figure 2. The building complex from the south (Photo: Yücel Erdaş)

Figure 3. Handmade pottery from the building complex and burial finds (Photo: Yücel Erdaş)

48

Ahmet Gormus, A. Tuba Okse and Erkan Atay: Transactions between local inhabitants and Assyrians

Figure 4. Iron tools and weapons from the cremation burials (Photo: Yücel Erdaş)

49

50

The Imperial sculpture workshops: the origin of images of children in the depiction of the Exodus on Early Christian sarcophagi Lihi Habas

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Institute of Archaeology, Israel The Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus) is depicted on a group of more than 25 marble Christian sarcophagi, dating from the mid to late fourth century. It depicts the Egyptian army first issuing from the city gate and then drowning in the Red Sea. The Israelites are marching through the wilderness behind the pillar of fire, with Moses bringing up the rearguard and striking towards the Red Sea with his staff.1 The scene emphasizes the redemption of the Children of Israel and the drowning of the Egyptians. The episode is generally depicted in a rich and crowded composition, full of figures and characterized by a great deal of movement. In this article I will examine the origin and significance of the small children in the composition.

their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders”. In some cases the father is in a different position, as in a sarcophagus from the Lateran in Rome (Fig. 3)5 and another from Nîmes.6 On these the father, holding his son’s hand and carrying a bundle wrapped round his neck, leads the Israelites, and Miriam with her tambourine follows him. On several sarcophagi the Israelites appear against the background of a colonnaded portico. This was explained by Wilpert as the gateway to the Promised Land, but it should actually be viewed as an element of compositional symmetry balancing the city gate depicted on the left, a symmetry that is common in Christian art.

The Crossing of the Red Sea on the “City Gate” and “Double Frieze” sarcophagi

Several large and small fragments depicting the scene of Exodus have survived, among them a small fragments in the museum of Campo Santo Tedesco,7 the right-hand half of a sarcophagus from Sainte Marie at Moustries near Riez,8 part of a sarcophagus from the church of St. Afra and now in the Museo Civico at Brescia9 and the sarcophagus from the villa of Doria Pamphili in Rome.10

As a rule, the Crossing of the Red Sea is a single scene extending across the facade of the sarcophagus and read from left to right. Because the Egyptian army exits from a city gate, these are known as “City Gate” sarcophagi. On a sarcophagus exhibited in the museum at Arles (Fig. 1) and a second sarcophagus in Chapelle-de-la-Ste.-Croix at Arles2 the Egyptian cavalry issues from the gate; under the hooves of the horses are personifications of Egypt and the city. Next we see the Egyptian army with Pharaoh in its center, standing in a two-horse chariot (biga) and holding a spear and a round shield. Below this is a depiction of the river god. We next see the soldiers drowning in the Red Sea. On the opposite shore is Moses in the rearguard, striking towards the sea with his staff. The Israelites march through the wilderness led by Miriam, who holds a tambourine and follows the pillar of fire. Among the Israelites are small children holding their parents’ hands and another child carried on his father’s shoulders. A similar scene appears on a third sarcophagus from Arles, which comes from the church of Saint Trophine.3

On a fourth sarcophagus from Arles (Fig. 4),11 several episodes extend across the facade and the ends. The narrative includes the expulsion of the Israelites by Pharaoh on the left end, the Crossing of the Red Sea on the facade, and the miracles of Moses striking the rock and the quail on the right end. The detail of this depiction is unusual and apparently originates in a broad narrative cycle of the Life of Moses. On both ends of the sarcophagus, small children appear next to their parents or holding their garments. The Crossing of the Red Sea is also depicted on the facades of sarcophagi that bear several episodes from the Old and New Testaments, with the common theme of the redemption of the faithful. On this group, known as the “Double Frieze” type, portraits of the deceased appear within a clipeus in the center. The Crossing of the Red

On a sarcophagus from Salona, now in the museum at Split (Fig. 2),4 an additional episode appears: two children hold Miriam’s robe. The child on his father’s shoulders has been replaced by a long bundle wrapped around his neck, apparently referring to the description in Exodus 12:34: “And the people took their dough before it was leavened,

  Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 235, 247, 249, Tav. CCIX:3; Leclercq 1929: 1705-6, Fig. 6863; 1933: 488, No. 15; Deichmann, Bovini and Brandenburg 1967: 61, Taf. 20:64. 6   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 247, 249, Tav. CCXVI:8; Leclercq 1933: 4867, No. 13. 7   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 250, Tav. CCXVI:2, 7; Leclercq 1933: 489, Nos. 18, 20. 8   Leclercq 1933: 486, Fig. 8006, No. 12; Christern-Briesenick 2003: 1712, Taf. 87:4-5, No. 356. 9   Veganzones 1990: 579-80, Fig. 9. 10   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 246, 248. Tav. CCX:1; Leclercq 1933: 4878, No. 14; Deichmann, Bovini and Brandenburg 1967: 399-400, Taf. 153:954a-b. 11   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1: 110, Tav. LXXXXVII:2-4, Vol. 2: 244-5; Leclercq 1933: 482-3, Figs. 8002-4, No. 1; Rosenau 1960: 8-9, Figs. 5-7; Christern-Briesenick 2003: 8-10, Taf. 6:2-4, No. 21. 5

  Becker 1909: 25-64.   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1: 123, Tav. LXXXXVII:1; Laurence 1927: 1-45, Fig. 33; Leclercq 1933: 484, No. 4; Christern-Briesenick 2003: 31-2, 746, Taff. 16:1, 34:4, 35:1-3, Nos. 43, 119. 3   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 247, Tav. CCXI:1; Leclercq 1933: 484, No. 3; Christern-Briesenick 2003: 32-3, Taf. 16:2, No. 44. 4   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 247, Tav. CCX:2; Leclercq 1933: 489, Fig. 8008, No. 21; Dresken-Weiland 1967: 51-2, Taff. 53:146, 54:1-4.  1 2

51

SOMA 2010 Sea appears in various places on the facade. It is similar to the scenes previously described, although it is abbreviated and consists of two parts rather than three, omitting the exit of the Egyptian army from the city gate, the portico in the desert and the personifications. Among this group, I will mention a fifth sarcophagus from Arles, which bears portraits of two deceased people in a clypeus (Fig. 5).12 Several scenes are depicted on this sarcophagus; they include the Old Testament scenes of the Sacrifice of Isaac, Moses receiving the Tablets of the Law on Mt. Sinai and Daniel in the lion’s den, and the New Testament scenes of Christ healing the blind man and Pilate washing his hands. A sarcophagus in the Lateran (Fig. 6) has a portrait of a young man in a clipeus together with depictions of Adam and Eve, the Sacrifice of Isaac, the entry of Christ into Jerusalem, the Adoration of the Magi and the Multiplication of the Loaves.13 A sarcophagus from the cemetery of Pisa also belongs to the same category.14

depicted on the façade of the sarcophagi, such as the myth of Phaedra and Hippolytus from the Paris, Pisa, Vatican, Beirut, Agrigento, Budapest and Istanbul;20 the myth of Medea from Rome and Basel;21 the myth of Marsyas From Rome and Paris;22 and the myth of the Rape of Persephone from Rome, Baltimore, Vienna and Askhelon.23 This custom was adopted by Christian craftsmen in the late third century. On the other hand, the sarcophagi of the “Double Frieze” type are unique in Christian art and lack earlier pagan models. While the Labours of Hercules are sometimes depicted, as on the sarcophagi from Florence, Rome, Mantua and Antalya,24 no known pagan sarcophagi depict a large number of scenes that are connected only by their idea, conveying a message of the redemption of the individual and the group by divine intervention. The origin of this trend is in the wall paintings of catacombs in thirdcentury Rome.25 The Crossing of the Red Sea in Jewish and Christian art in different media

An abbreviated version of the Crossing of the Red Sea appears on sarcophagus lids as well, such as a lid from the catacomb of St. Ciriaca in Rome (Fig. 7). The scene has been reduced to a few figures and the characteristic crowding has given way to spaces between the figures. The first cavalryman on the left, who wears a crown, was identified by Wilpert as Pharaoh. Next come infantry and cavalry of the Egyptian army, reduced to four figures rushing to their extinction in the waves of the sea. Among the Israelites is a man moving forward but looking backward, holding his young son’s hand. The inscription: “Gorgonio rest in peace, he is laid within.....” was engraved in the center of the lid and the right side is not preserved.15 On a sarcophagus lid from Avignon, the Crossing of the Red Sea and the Miracle of the Quails are depicted to the right of a square relief lacking an inscription, with the Story of Jonah to its left.16

The miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea appears in Jewish and Christian art in different media and varying compositions, attesting to different iconographic models. They too contain children. Among them we will mention the wall painting in the Dura Europos synagogue, dated 244-245. The Crossing of the Red Sea is placed close to the Ark of the Law and differs from the depictions on sarcophagi in its direction (right to left), character and components. Among the Israelites is a child holding his father’s hand.26 The miracle has survived also in two fifth-century churches in Rome one appears on the carved wooden door of the church of Santa Sabina dated 432, which shows a child riding on his father’s shoulders,27 and the other is a wall mosaic in the nave of the church of Santa Maria Maggiore dated 432-440, which shows a small child next to Moses.28 The compositions of these two, however, are completely different from those of the depictions on the sarcophagi.

Comparison to the mythological sarcophagi Researchers have previously claimed that these sarcophagi were manufactured in workshops in Rome or northern Italy,17 or that they were copies made in Arles in southern France.18 Today there is a consensus among researchers that they originate in workshops in Rome, as claimed by Wilpert, Kitzinger, Beckwith and Lowrie.19 As we have seen, the depiction is uniform and consistent, both in the detailed narrative and in the abbreviated version. The “City Gate” sarcophagi follow a composition common in pagan funerary art, in which a single subject was

There is an iconographic link between the depictions on sarcophagi and those in fourth-century wall paintings in the catacombs of the Via Latina in Rome. The Crossing of the Red Sea in Catacomb C (Fig. 8) contains a father holding his small son’s hand, and close by another father carrying his son on his shoulders. The children are missing from the similar scene in Catacomb O.29

  Koch 1982: 150-3, 393-8, 567, Taff. 170-2, 425-8, 567.   Koch 1982: 159-61, Taff. 180-1. 22   Koch 1982: 158-9, Taff. 177-9. 23   Koch 1982: 175-9, Taff. 203-7. 24   Koch 1982: 148-9, 503, Taff. 166-8, 487, 489; Kleiner 1992: 305, Fig. 274. 25   Lowrie 1965: 68-86; Kitzinger 1977: 23. 26   Kraeling 1956: 74-86, Pls. LII-LIII; Goodenough 1964a: 105-39; 1964b: Fig. 330; Weitzmann and Kessler 1990: 38-52, Figs. 5, 48-9. 27   Leclercq 1933: 490, Fig. 8009, No. 22. 28   Berchem and Clouzot 1924: 29-30, Fig. 34; Leclercq 1933: 490-1, Fig. 8010, No. 23; Wilpert 1976: 313, Taf. 39. 29   Ferrua 1960: 93, Tavv. XXXVII, CXV; 1990: 68-70, 122-4, Figs. 66, 134, 149. 20 21

  Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2, 232, 238, 243, 250. Tav. CLXXXXV:4; Leclercq 1933: 484-5, Fig. 8005, No.7; Bovini 1949: 203-4, Fig. 215; Christern-Briesenick 2003: 28-9, Taf. 15:1, No. 41. 13   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1: Tav. CLVII:1; Leclercq 1933: 488, No. 16. 14   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1: Tav. CLVII:2. 15   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 245-6, Tav. CCIX:1; Leclercq 1933: 488-9, Fig. 8007, No. 17. 16   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 244, Tav. CCIX:2; Leclercq 1933: 485, No. 9. 17   Soper 1937: 160; Morey 1953: 132-4, 137; Veganzones 1990: 579-80. 18   Beckwith 1979: 44-5. 19   Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 244, 247; Lowrie 1965: 68-86; Kitzinger 1977: 24, 27; Beckwith 1979: 44-5. 12

52

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops There is an intriguing influence of the depictions of Early Christian sarcophagi on Byzantine and Carolingian manuscripts such as the Octateuchs and Psalters. Among these I will mention twelfth-century Octateuchs illustrations based on Early Byzantine manuscripts, which depict the Crossing of the Red Sea and include children and the round bundle around the neck, such as Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, folios 186r, 189r, 190r, 192v;30 Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, folios 88r, 89v;31 Istanbul, Ser., Cod 8, folios 194r, 197v32 and Smyrna, Cod A.i, sm., folios. 80r, 81v.33 The motif also occurs in miniatures in the ninth-century Chloudov Psalter, Moscow, Historical Museum, Cod. 129, fol. 108r;34 the Paris Psalter, MS. gr. 139, folio 419v, dated 950-970 and currently in the Bibliothèque National of Paris,35 and the Leo Bible, MS. regina Gr. 1, folio 46 v, dated 930-950 and currently in the Biblioteca Vaticana in Rome.36

baptism destroys Satan, and the same idea is echoed in the writings of St. Basil ‘The Great’ (330-379) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-c.395).40 Origen interpreted the staff of Moses as the Cross of Jesus.41 St. Ambrose equated the pillar of cloud with the Holy Spirit.42 St. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) interpreted the pillar of fire as a manifestation of the Logos and St. Ambrose compared it to Christ.43 It is noteworthy that children are not mentioned in any of these interpretations.44 Similarity between reliefs: the Crossing of the Red Sea on the sarcophagi and the victory at Milvian Bridge on the Arch of Constantine Grabar analyzed the mosaic of St. Maria Maggiore church and proposed that its iconographic origin should be sought in the art of Imperial Rome.45 Wilpert, Leclerq and Becker suggested that the appearance of the Crossing of the Red Sea in Christian art in the fourth century is connected with a significant event in the history of the Roman Empire and of Christianity: the victory of Constantine the Great over Maxentius in the battle of Milvian Bridge in the year 312, thanks to a cross that appeared in the sky.46 This victory was commemorated in a triumphal arch erected by Constantine in Rome between 312-315.47 Eusebius bishop of Caesarea (264-340), who documented Constantine’s life, created an analogy between the miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea and the victory at Milvian Bridge.

The lack of the theme of children in the literary sources The appearance of young children holding their parents’ hands or garments or riding on their shoulders, while they march through the wilderness in the scene of the crossing of the Red Sea, is surprising, since they do not explicitly figure in the Biblical narrative,37 or in the Jewish penitential prayers or Christian burial services (Commendatio animae) in which the miracle is mentioned.38 The Church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries do not mention children either, although they deal extensively with the miracle and ascribe Christian meaning to it. The Biblical event serves as a prefiguration of a several elements of the Christian faith. The Crossing of the Red Sea is explained as prefiguring the sacrament of baptism as early as the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians 10:1-2 “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” The Church Fathers Origen (185-254), St. Ambrose (339-397) and St. Augustine (354-430) further developed this idea.39 According to Tertullian (160-c.225),

“As, for example, in the days of Moses himself and the ancient and godly race of the Hebrews, ‘Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hate he cast into the sea, his chosen horsemen, even captains, they were sunk in the Red Sea, the deep covered them’; in the same way also Maxentius and the armed soldiers and guards around him ‘went down into the depths like a stone,’ when he turned his back before the God-sent power that was with Constantine…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chap. 9.548 On the southeast side of the arch (Fig. 9), the army of Maxentius is shown drowning in the River Tiber. The soldiers hold swords and round shields. A personification of the river is depicted in the water. On the opposite side, the infantry and cavalry of Constantine attack.49 The similarity to the depiction of the Crossing of the Red Sea is not coincidental, and one may assume that the sarcophagi were influenced by Imperial art. Both compositions— the victory of Constantine and the Biblical miracle—are

  Buchthal 1968: Pl. XXIII, Fig. 64; Narkiss 1984: Fig. 2; Weitzmann and Kessler 1990: 42, 46-8, Figs. 58, 66-7, 69; Weitzmann and Bernabò 1999: Vol. I: 163, 165, Vol. II: Figs. 699, 707. 31   Weitzmann and Kessler 1990: 46, 48, Figs. 65, 70; Weitzmann and Bernabò 1999: Vol. I: 165, Vol. II: Fig. 704. 32   Ouspensky 1907: Pls. XXI:118, XXII:121; Goodenough 1964b: Fig. 267; Weitzmann and Bernabò 1999: Vol. I: 163, 165, Vol. II: Figs. 697, 705. 33   Weitzmann and Bernabò 1999: Vol. I: 163, 165, Vol. II: Figs. 698, 706. 34   Weitzmann and Kessler 1990: 47, Fig. 68. 35   Morey 1929: 22, Fig. 25; Buchthal 1968: Pl. XX, Fig. 43; Grabar 1979: 161, Fig. on p. 169; Narkiss 1984: 6, Fig. 1. 36   Morey 1929: 35, Fig. 39. 37   Weitzmann explained the depiction in which one of the Israelites takes a little boy by the hand in the fresco of Dura Europos Synagogue as a genre motif that may be explained by the phrase: “Thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In my opinion the phrase is related not directly to the miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea, but rather to all the events of the Exodus. However, I accept his opinion that this motif was not invented for this biblical passage but had its antecedents in such Roman processional reliefs as the Ara Pacis in Rome, as we shall see. (Weitzmann and Kessler 1990: 42). 38   Rosenau 1956: 79-83. 39   Origen, Homilies on Exodus, V.5, V.I.1842; St. Ambrose, Sacramentis 30

1.12, Botte 57-58; St. Augustine, PL XXXVIII.1064. 40   Tertullian, De Baptismo; St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 14, Prache 163164; St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita Moysis; PG XLIV.589 D. 41   Origen, Homilies on Exodus, IV.267. 42   St. Ambrose, De Mysteriis, 12, Botte III. 43   St. Clement, Stromateis, 1.24; St. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, 1.12, Botte 61. 44   Becker 1909: 115-19. 45   Grabar 1980: 47-9, Figs. 137-8. 46   Becker 1909; Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 245-6; Leclercq 1933: 481. 47   Richardson 1975: 72-8. 48   Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, IX. 9. 5; Lake 1980: 361. 49   Strong 1907: 331-2, Pl. CIII:4; Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2: 247, Tav. CCXVI:9; Berenson 1954: 16, Pl.17; Kleiner 1992: 447, Figs. 407, 410.

53

SOMA 2010 crowded and display horror vacui, and both place the waves of the river or the sea in the center and architectural elements at the sides. The creations are very similar in stylistic terms: the medium relief, the compression of human proportions, the schematic portrayal of folds of garments, hair and beards, and the frenzied movement at the center of the composition.

the harmony, family unity (concordia), and political ambitions of the dynasty. The children attest to the success and continuity of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Augustus placed great emphasis on the younger generation, and they played a significant role in his social legislation, which encouraged childbirth among the aristocracy after a decline in their birthrate and a rise in the numbers of freedmen. Those children on the Ara Pacis who are dressed not in a toga but in Trojan or Gallic costume are identified by some scholars, as Gallic princes as symbols of both Roman domination and clemency.52

The link between Imperial Roman art and the Crossing of the Red Sea on the sarcophagi is further evident in several details of the composition. Pharaoh is prominent and is portrayed as an emperor, on horseback or in a two-horse (biga) or four-horse (quadriga) chariot. The Egyptian soldiers are dressed and armed like Roman legionaries. The Israelites are dressed like Roman citizens in a short (tunica) or long (pallium) tunic, or in a toga. Moreover, the personifications of the city and the river are identical in placement and pose.

Although children appear infrequently on State monuments, they continue to appear for four hundred years, mainly in the context of two Imperial ceremonies: the institutio alimentaria (distribution of donations to feed the poor) and the clementia (the pardoning of the emperor’s enemies). The institutio alimentaria appears on monuments of three more emperors, Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. The beginning of the donations to feed the poor children was connected with Trajan’s social policies. Trajan decided to fund the alimentary system from the imperial treasury to provide an allowance to feed the poor children of Italy. One of their purposes was to increase the birthrate among the poorer classes of Roman Society to enhance recruitment to the legions. The program was prominently advertised on the Arch of Trajan at Benevento built between 114-118 (Fig. 13). In the institutio alimentaria scene the emperor is depicted accompanied by personifications as he distributes the donations. Opposite him are depicted needy children, from babes in arms to five-six year olds. Two sit piggyback style on the shoulders of their fathers, who are dressed in short tunic of the lower classes.53

The place of children in Roman Imperial art However, the most striking element connecting Imperial art with that of the sarcophagi is the appearance of the children, which as we have seen are not attested in literary sources. Children appear on two additional panels of the Arch of Constantine. The first is the oratio panel (Fig. 10), depicting the speech made by Constantine to the Roman people from the Rostra in the Forum Romanum. In the center is the emperor in military dress, surrounded by senators dressed in togas. On the left and right are people dressed in short tunics, attesting to their low status, and among them are three small children.50 The second panel is the congiarium (Fig. 11), in which the emperor distributes donations to the senators and Roman citizens, an event that took place in 313. The emperor sits in the center on a podium, with a small tablet containing coins in his hand. The people standing below raise their hands to receive the emperor’s gift. Among the simple citizens, distinguished from the senators by their dress, are children holding their parents’ hands or riding on their shoulders, as in the sarcophagi.51

The institutio alimentaria is also depicted in the time of Hadrian, in a panel that belonged to a lost arch or altar built to commemorate his wife Sabina after her death in 136138. Later, in the fifth century the panel was incorporated in the Arco de Portogallo; this was destroyed in the 17th century and its remains are housed today in the Museo dei Conservatori in Rome. Opposite Hadrian, who is making a speech, stands a small child. Some scholars have suggested that the young boy must stand for impoverished Roman children who were the recipients of the emperor’s largesse.54 Children beside their parents or carried on their shoulders also appear on the panel depicting the distribution of money to the citizens that was part of the lost arch of the emperor Marcus Aurelius of 176-180, incorporated in the Arch of Constantine in the fourth century.55

The similarities between the Early Christian sarcophagi and the panels on the Arch of Constantine, and the fact that the sarcophagi were produced in workshops in Rome, raise the possibility that the motif of children in Christian sarcophagi originated in Imperial Roman art. As a rule, children are rare in State monuments. Study of Roman reliefs of all periods depicting State and religious ceremonies has shown that children appear for the first time on the Ara Pacis Augustae, celebrating the Pax Romana imposed by Augustus and dedicated in 9 BCE in the Campus Martius (Fig. 12). The frieze shows a procession that includes members of the Imperial family and their children. The family procession expresses

  Strong 1907: 39-58, Pls. XI, XIII; La Rocca 1986: 31-5, Fig. on pp. 278, 30, 34; Kleiner 1992: 90-9, Figs. 75, 77, 79 and on p. 58; Rose 1997: 11-21, Pls. 105-9; Uzzi 2005: 142-55, Figs. 59-61. 53   Strong 1907: 222, Pl. LXVI; Berenson 1954: 41, Pl. 43; Kleiner 1992: 224, 452, Fig. 190. Uzzi offers a different opinion; Uzzi 2005: 41-5, Fig. 9. 54   Strong 1907: 237-8, Pl. LXXI:3; Kleiner 1992: 253-4, Fig. 221. Uzzi identifies the scene as an adlocutio; Uzzi 2005: 55-8, Fig. 17. 55   Strong 1907: 294, Pl. XCII:12; Berenson 1954: 41, Pl. 12; Kleiner 1992: 291-2, 446, Fig. 259; Uzzi 2005: 47-50, Fig. 13. 52

  Strong 1907: 332, Pl. CIII:1; Berenson 1954: 37-9, Pls. 40, 44-5; Kleiner 1992: 450-2, Fig. 412. 51   Strong 1907: 332, Pl. CIII:2; Berenson 1954: 37-9, Pls. 40, 44-5; Kleiner 1992: 452, Fig. 413; Uzzi 2005: 50, Fig. 14. 50

54

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops Children also appear in depictions of the clementia, the ceremony in which the emperor pardoned his enemies. These depictions also appear in media other than State monuments. The earliest example is on the silver cup discovered in the villa at Boscoreale (Fig. 14), depicting the clementia of Augustus. The emperor sits on a throne accompanied by lectors and Roman soldiers, who introduce to him the barbarian leaders who are pleading for their lives. The first kneels and presents his son. Behind him stands another barbarian, supporting one son who stands in front of him and carrying a second son on his shoulders.56 The appearance of the children is significant, since these are future leaders of the tribe who will grow up as supporters of Rome.

It should be emphasized that Roman children consistently appear in scenes of official and public events like the public address (adlocutio), sacrifices, games and processions, such as the scenes from the Column of Trajan, as well as the scenes of imperial largesse mentioned above. In contrast, barbarian children or non-Roman children appear only when accompanying adult prisoners of war beside the traditional triumphal quadriga and spoils of war in triumphal processions. Examples are a Julio-Claudian architectural frieze from Rome, dated to the first century and today exhibited in the Museo Nazionale in Naples. The frieze on the Arch of Trajan at Benevento (114-118) and a frieze from the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Manga erected in 203. Non-Roman children are shown in violent military conflict for the first time in 113 appear on a relatively small number of monuments, such as the scenes on the Column of Trajan and, in particularly brutal style, on the Column of Marcus Aurelius. Barbarian children also appear in scenes of submission, discussed in detail above.64

Similar scenes are depicted in reliefs on the Antonine sarcophagi, in which Roman generals appear in clementia ceremonies. I will note the Potonaccio Sarcophagus, portraying scenes from the life of a dead general. The right-hand scene depicts the general in cuirass seated on a chair; a male barbarian kneels before him and kisses his hand in a gesture of submission. Behind the general is a Roman soldier attending to a male barbarian with his hands tied behind his back and a female barbarian and her child.57

Summary and conclusions The Roman emperors, from Augustus to Constantine the Great (the first Christian emperor), incorporated children, both future Roman citizens and captive barbarians, in State monuments. They were also included in reliefs on the sarcophagi of generals. The depictions are uniform and all derive from common prototypes. The compositional and stylistic similarity between the Christian sarcophagi and the contemporary Constantinian reliefs implies that the same craftsmen were involved in their production. The Constantinian reliefs of the fourth century continue a long tradition of the depiction of children in Imperial ceremonies, whether members of the Imperial family as symbols of the dynasty’s continuity, or children of the poor participating in the distribution of charity in the institutio alimentaria, or barbarian children taking part in clementia ceremonies symbolizing the clemency of emperors and generals towards defeated enemies and their families.

The subject appears on the main body of other coffins such as the Clementia Sarcophagus, today exhibited in the Vatican (Fig. 15),58 and the Marriage Sarcophagi, dated circa 170.59 On the left-hand side of the Mantua Sarcophagus (Fig. 16), today in the Palazzo Ducale, the general grants clemency to a group of barbarians, including a woman and her child who supplicate before him.60 A similar scene is on a biographical sarcophagus now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the sarcophagus from Pisa dated 160-180, and on the lid of the Ludovisi Sarcophaguse dated circa 260 and today in the RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz.61 Clementia scenes also appear on State monuments. We will mention the Column of Trajan, erected in 113 to commemorate the victory over the Dacians (Fig. 17). Barbarian children appear with their parents in scenes of surrender, supplication and clementia, while their livestock are being deported, forced to abandon lands that will be occupied by the Romans.62 Likewise, two scenes from the Column of Marcus Aurelius, erected between 180 and 192, show the submission of non-Roman children to the emperor (Fig. 18).63

The children are thus symbols of continuity and redemption, whether by the distribution of charity or the sparing of their lives. This iconographic symbol was transferred by the craftsmen, consciously or unconsciously, from Roman Imperial iconography to the iconography of Early Christian sarcophagi. In this way the children in the Crossing of the Red Sea attest to the miracle and the redemption of future generations. Bibliography

  Strong 1907: 83-5, Pl. XXVII:1-2; Kleiner 1992: 152-3, Fig. 128; Uzzi 2005: 88-90, Figs. 31-2. 57   Kleiner 1992: 301, Fig. 269. 58   Koch 1982: 86-7, Taf. 96; Kleiner 1992: 302, Fig. 270; Uzzi 2005: 100-1, Fig. 40. 59   Kleiner 1992: 303, Fig. 271. 60   Koch 1982: 99-100, Taf. 93; Uzzi 2005: 94-5, Fig. 35. 61   Kleiner 1992: 389-90, Fig. 358; Uzzi 2005: 95-6, 192-203, Figs. 36, 41. 62   Coarelli 2000: 85, 133, 149, Pls. 41, 89, 105; Uzzi 2005: 90-4, Fig. 33. 63   Uzzi 2005: 96-8, Fig. 37. 56

Becker, E. (1909) Das Quellwunder des Moses in der altchristlichen Kunst, Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes, 72, Strassburg.   Coarelli 2000: 216, Figs. 172; Krierer 2004: 137-42, Abb. 135, 1378, 140; Uzzi 2005: 71-5, 84-119, 125-6, 129-135, 139-141, Figs. 24-5, 42-5, 52-6. 64

55

SOMA 2010 Beckwith, J. (1979) Early Christian and Byzantine Art. London. Van Berchem, M. and E. Clouzot. (1924) Mosaïques chrétiennes du IVme au Xme siècle. Geneva. Berenson, B. (1954) The Arch of Constantine or the Decline of Form. London. Bovini, G. (1949) I Sarcofagi paleocristiani: determinazione della loro cronologia. mediante l’analisi dei ritratti. Città del Vaticano. Buchthal, H. (1968) The Miniatures of the Paris Psalter: a Study in Middle Byzantine Painting. Nendeln, Liechtenstein. Christern-Briesenick, B. (2003) Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage. Band III: Frankreich, Algerien, Tunesien. Mainz am Rhein. Coarelli, F. (2000) The Column of Trajan. Rome. Deichmann, F.W. Bovini, G. and H. Brandenburg. (1967) Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage. Band I: Rom und Ostia. Wiesbaden. Dresken-Weiland, J. (1967) Repertorium der christlichantiken Sarkophage. Band II: Italien mit einem Nachtrag Rom und Ostia. Wiesbaden. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica. IN: Lake, K. ed. (1980) The Ecclesiastical History, English translation. London. Ferrua, A. (1960) Le pitture della Nuova Catacomba di Via Latina. Rome, Città del Vaticano. Ferrua, A. (1990) Catacombe sconosciute. Una pinacoteca del IV secolo sotto la Via Latina. Firenze. Goodenough, E.R. (1964a) Jewish Symbols. Vol. 10. New York. Goodenough, E.R. (1964b) Jewish Symbols. Vol. 11. New York. Grabar, A. (1979) Byzantine Painting. New York. Grabar, A. (1980) Christian Iconography, A Study of Its Origins. London. Kitzinger, E. (1977) Byzantine Art in the Making. London. Kleiner, D.E.E. (1992) Roman Sculpture. New Haven and London. Koch, G. (1982) Römische Sarkophage. München. Kraeling, C.K. (1956) The Excavations at Dura-Europos – Final Report, VIII, Part I: The Synagogue. New Haven. Krierer, K.R. (2004) Antike Germanenbilder. Wien Laurence, M. (1927) City Gate Sarcophagi. Art Bulletin, 10, 1-45. Leclercq, H. (1929) Lateran. IN: Cabrol, D. and H. Leclercq eds., Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 8.2, Paris, 1529-1887.

Leclercq, H. (1933) Mer Rouge. IN: Cabrol, D. and H. Leclercq eds., Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 11.1, Paris, 478-93. Lowrie, W (1965) Art in the Early Church. New York. Morey, C.R. (1929) Notes on East Christian Miniatures. Art Bulletin, 11, 5-103. Morey, C.R. (1953) Early Christian Christian Art. Princeton New Jersey. Narkiss, B. (1984) Pharaoh is Dead and Living at the Gates of Hell. Journal of Jewish Art, 10, 6-13. Ouspensky, T. (1907) L’Octateuque du Sérail à Constantinople, Bulletin de l’Institut archéologique russe à Constantinople, 12, Sofia. La Rocca, E. (1986) Ara Pacis Augustae, in occasione del restauro della fronte orientale. Roma. Richardson, L. (1975) The Date and Program of the Arch of Constantine. Archeologia Classica, 27, 72-8. Rose, C.B. (1997) Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge. Rosenau, H. (1956) A Note on Judaeo-Christian Iconography. The Journal of Jewish Studies, 2, 79-83. Rosenau, H. (1960) Problems of Jewish Iconography. Gazette des beaux-arts, 56, 5-16. Soper, A.C. (1937) The Late Style on Christian Sarcophagi of the Fourth Century. Art Bulletin, 19, 148-202. Strong, A. (1907) Roman Sculpture‎ from Augustus to Constantine. London. Uzzi, J.D. (2005) Children in the Visual Arts of Imperial Rome. Cambridge. Veganzones, A.R. (1990) La representación arquitectónica de la Rotonda del Santo Sepulcro en la escultura paleocristiana de Occidente. IN: Bottini, G.C., Alliata, E. and L. Di Segni eds., Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Essays in Honour of V.C. Corbo, OFM), SBF, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 571-89. Weitzmann, K. and M. Bernabò. (1999) The Byzantine Octateuchs. Vols. I-II. Princeton, N.J. Weitzmann, K. and H. L. Kessler (1990) The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art. Washington, D.C. Wilpert, J. (1976) Die römischen Mosaiken der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV-XIII Jahrhundert. Vol. I. Freiburg im Breisgau. Wilpert, G. (1929-1936) I Sarcophagi Christiana antici. Rome.

56

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops

Fig. 1.1-2: City Gate sarcophagus, Arles, No. 1 (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 2: City Gate sarcophagus, Salona (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 3: City Gate sarcophagus, Rome, Lateran (Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2, Tav. CCIX:3)

57

SOMA 2010

Fig. 4: City Gate sarcophagus, Arles, No. 4 (Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1, Tav. LXXXXVII:2-4)

Fig. 5: Double Frieze sarcophagus, Arles, No. 5 (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 6: Double Frieze sarcophagus, Rome, Lateran (Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 1, Tav. CLVII:1)

58

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops

Fig. 7: Rome, Catacomb of S. Ciriaca (Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2, Tav.CCIX:1)

Fig. 8: Via Latina Catacomb, Rome (Ferrua 1990: Fig. 149)

Fig. 9: The Battle of Milvian Bridge, Arch of Constantine, Rome (Wilpert 1929-36: Vol. 2, Tav. CCXVI:9)

Fig. 10: Oratio, Arch of Constantine, Rome (Kleiner 1992: Fig. 412)

59

SOMA 2010

Fig. 11: Congiarium, Arch of Constantine, Rome (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 12: Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome (Photo: Lihi Habas)

60

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops

Fig. 13: Institutio alimentaria, Arch of Trajan, Benevento (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 14: Clementia of Augustus, silver cup, Boscoreale (Kleiner 1992: Fig. 128)

61

SOMA 2010

Fig. 15: Clementia Sarcophagus, Vatican (Photo: Lihi Habas)

Fig. 16: Clementia Sarcophagus, Mantua (Koch 1982: Taf. 93)

62

Lihi Habas: The Imperial Sculpture Workshops

Fig. 17: Column of Trajan, Rome (Coarelli 2000: Pl. 89)

Fig. 18: Column of Marcus Aurelius, Rome (Uzzi 2005: Fig. 37)

63

64

The fish industry in the Northern Pontic region (Cherson): Questions of continuity and prosperity in the early Byzantine period Martina Jirouskova

Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, Department of Classical Archaeology

The city of Cherson is situated on the south-western coast of the Crimean peninsula (Fig. 1). The Black Sea abounded in fish thanks to the many rivers flowing into it. The size of the fish catches and how the fish were then processed and distributed, thanks to local salt deposits, were the main prerequisites for a successful fish business.1

these cisterns, which were not built earlier than in the fifth century, this theory must have been revised.4 The cisterns in Cherson are relatively large and deep and are considered to have been used for processing small fish.5 It is possible to compare cisterns from Cherson to the cisterns that were found at Tyritake – the latter were shallow, suitable for salting large and expensive fish.

Salt was necessary for fish paste (garum) production and for preserving fish products destined for transportation. What was needed for garum production and how to make it is described, for example, in several ancient sources, i.e. Geoponika.2

The Cherson cisterns’ capacity and shape varies, with the average volume being 25-30 cubic meters. The shapes of the cisterns can vary – pentagonal, rectangular or funnelshaped.6 The walls were usually cemented and the floor cemented over a layer of bricks or limestone plates. Some of the bricks were inscribed with church announcements (‘Indiktionsstempel’).

The fish industry must have been one of the most developed industries in Cherson from Roman times, as can be deduced from archaeological finds of fishing equipment (net weights, hooks, needles etc.). These items have been found in large quantities in Cherson.

Fish produce transport amphoras: Roman period Since antiquity, there have been attempts to interconnect the shape of a vessel with its content. It was known that the shape of the vessel affected the contents and that one particular shape was not suitable for every type of content. Practical reasons played their role, too.

After catching, the fish were taken to the shore where they were either sold directly to individuals, traders, or fish processors. Processing included salting, smoking, drying or preserving (making garum). The process of salting took place in cisterns built for the purpose. More than 100 cisterns remain at Cherson (some are preserved and published) and they testify to an active and well developed industry.3 (Fig. 2)

There are some amphora shapes considered to have been used for specific contents: for example, amphoras for olive oil had a short neck and globular body (i.e. Dressel 7), for wine long-necked amphoras proved best (i.e. Dressel 1). The amphoras for fish products, in general, had no, or short wide (eventually conical) neck, ovoid body and massive toe, for example Dressel 20.7

It used to be thought that the boom in fishing was connected to the presence of the Roman army in the Black Sea area from the first to the fourth centuries AD and it did not continue when the army left, but after excavating

According to archaeological evidence, the shape of the ‘fish amphora’ used in the Black Sea was similar to that used in the Mediterranean.8. Concerning the Black Sea region in Roman times, there are some known amphora types which were suitable for fish transport. These are

1   We can read in the Constantin Porfyrogennetos´ De Administrando Imperio about areas/marches where inhabitants of the Cherson salt mine lived. De administrando, 42, 120. 2   Geoponika, Biblion K, cap. 46, 6. There is also a Roman cookbook by Apicius in which the preparation of ‘fishsauce’ is also described. 3   The problematics of fishing equipment and cisterns, their building techniques, size and fish remnants in them have been largely discussed by Hojte 2005; Romancuk 2005, see also below. The fish cisterns have been described by Romancuk: they are divided into a groups according to building techniques and stratigraphy and according to the time of their construction. According to building techniques and stratigraphy it is possible to divide the known cisterns after the time of origin and after the time of use. There are also examples of non-Roman cisterns built in the fifth or sixth century, and at the turn of the sixth and seventh century. The next group includes the cisterns that were used in the sixth century, then those used until the turn of the sixth and seventh century, finally, there is an example of a cistern built in the ninth or tenth century. As there are also cisterns dated to Roman times, it can be said that the cisterns started to be built from the first to the fourth centuries. See Romancuk 2005.

  Romancuk 2005.   Hojte writes about fish bones found in the cisterns: in the town of Tyritake (area of Bospor Kingdom) there were mainly remnants of herring found while in Cherson the anchovies were primarily processed although also remnants of other fish were found. See Hojte 2005. Romancuk writes about more kinds of processed fish, see Romancuk 2005. 6   Romancuk, Sazanov, Sedikova 1995. 7   This typical shape of a ‘fish amphora’ was proposed by A. Opait who also described Black Sea types of fish amphoras, see Opait 2007 and also Ejstrud 2005. On the other hand, Curtis claims that types Dressel 7-14 are typical as fish sauce amphoras from Spain (Curtis 2005). 8   Black Sea fish amphoras are in general larger and heavier than the Mediterranean, see Opait 2007. 4 5

65

SOMA 2010 types Zeest 75, Zeest 75-Similis, Zeest 85-Similis, Zeest 83 and 89, Fish table amphora 54.9 (Fig. 3)

Nevertheless, in the seventh century there was a crisis across the Mediterranean, caused mainly by the appearance and quick onset of Arabs. This crisis of the seventh and, consequently, of the eighth century has been largely discussed, regarding the general decline of the Byzantine Empire and the question of the town’s decay.

Early Byzantine period According to the amphora and other finds it seems that the fish industry in Cherson was well established in the Roman period. However, after the might of the Roman Empire had been weakened a crisis affected the northern Pontic area in the fourth century AD. The crisis was connected with barbarian raids and movements in the steppes. Nevertheless, Cherson was not conquered and remained in Roman and, later, Byzantine hands.

However, if the seals of ‘kommerkiarioi’ are considered, it can be said that Cherson was still economically significant in the seventh and eight centuries and currency was in circulation.16 Contacts were held at that time mainly with the other Crimean cities and Khazars, but the Byzantine influence is also highly visible17 and there are finds of Mediterranean amphoras (see above). For the northern Pontos area the time until the third quarter of the seventh century was peaceful.

Based on pottery finds, Cherson was a significant trading centre in the first half of the fifth century.10 Being the most northern outpost of the Byzantine Empire, the town started to be considered as a significant part of the Empire and during the reign of the Emperor Justinian defences began to be built there and the prosperity and importance of the town, which increased further from the end of the fifth century, was undeniable.

Nonetheless, there is a written source from the second half of the seventh century: these are letters from Pope Martin, who was exiled to Cherson in 655. In his letters he complains about the hard living conditions and the expensive and insufficient food.18

Fish and garum processing in Cherson in the early Byzantine Empire; the transportation of produce

Archaeological evidence and written sources contradict each other a little at this point, however, the first signs of the crisis reached Cherson in the second half of the seventh century although the town was still a cultural, economic and industrial centre.

New salting cisterns were built in the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries (see above). This suggests that the process of salting fish continued.11

Conclusion

If we consider the amphora finds in the northern Pontic area in the period from the sixth to the end of the seventh century, there are some points to emphasize.

As for the northern Black Sea, the crisis influenced the region, too, however, trade links between the northern Pontic area and the Mediterranean were not interrupted, nevertheless trade contacts were reduced. The main trading partners came from Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, as well as Pontic settlements and Constantinople (the latter supplied the town with food.

Differences are noticeable in the number of amphora finds from various periods. The highest number of imported amphora finds comes from the years 570-580.12 Furthermore, there are many finds from the deposits in Cherson which come from the end of the sixth and from the seventh century.13 Among the amphora types found are Late Roman amphoras 1-5, together with many other imported types that have synchronous parallels in the Black Sea area and the Mediterranean, too, for example Zeest 99, Zeest 100, Sinopian ‘carrot’ amphoras and so on.14

Fish processing in Cherson in the early Byzantine period seems to have continued, according to finds of cisterns for salting. The excavated amphoras, which are known as transport vessels in other regions, could well have been used for transporting salty fish and garum, but they could also have been used as containers for other products, such as oil or naphta.19 More study is required on this subject.

According to these finds it is possible to say that trade between Cherson and other cities, namely Constantinople (where fish constituted a fundamental component of diet15) and other Pontic, as well as Mediterranean cities was flourishing in the sixth century, and especially at the end of the sixth and at the beginning of the seventh century.

In conclusion, Cherson was important for the early Byzantine Empire as a relatively near northern outpost and point of contact, with an excellent natural harbour and defences. As far as is known, fish processing continued into the early Byzantine period and at the time of the crisis in the Byzantine Empire it traded not only with the Pontos area but also with more distant cities. However, after

  Opait 2007, according to Zeest these types are dated to the second-third centuries AD. Zeest 1960. 10   Kadejev, Sorochan 1989. 11   Romancuk 1976. 12   Sazanov 2007. 13   Golofast 2007; Jakobson 1979. 14   Bortoli, Kazanski 2002; Golofast 2007; Romančuk, Sazanov, Sedikova 1995; Sazanov 2000. 15   Shepard 2009. 9

  Gerolymatou 2008.   Bortoli, Kazanski 2002. 18   Patrologia Latina 129, 586-64 19   There is a problem to what degree we can connect the shape of a vessel to a specific content. 16 17

66

Martina Jirouskova: The fish industry in the Northern Pontic region the mid-seventh century these trade contacts reduced in comparison to the previous hundred years.

Hojte, J. M. (2005) The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Reagion, in: BekkerNielsen, T. (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus University Press. Jakobson, A. L. (1979) Keramika i keramicheskoe proizvodstvo srednevekovoj Tavriky, Leningrad. Kadeev, V. I., Sorochan, S. B., (1989), Ekonomicheskie sviazi antichnich gorodov Severnogo Prichernomoria. Charkov. Laiou, A. E., (2002) The Economic History of Byzantium, From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Dumbarton Oaks. Opait, A. (2007) A Weighty Matter: Pontic Fish Amphorae, in: Gabrielsen, V., Lund, J. (ed.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchange, Aarhus University Press. Romancuk, A. I. (2005) Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie des Byzantinischen Cherson, Colloqiua Pontica 11. Romancuk, A. I. (1976), Chersones VI-pervoj poloviny IX. v., Sverdlovsk. Romancuk, A. I., Sazanov, A. V., Sedikova, L. V. (1995) Amfory iz kompleksov Vizantiiskogo Chersona, Ekaterinburg. Sazanov, A., (2000), Les ensambles clos de Chersonese de la fin du VIe-troisieme quart du VIIe siecles: la chronologie de la céramique, in: Kazanski, M., Soupalt, V., Les sites archéologiques en Crimée at au caucase durant l´antiquté tardive et le haut Moyen Age, Brill. Sazanov, A. (2007) ‘Les Amphores orientales d´époque protobyzantine au nord de la mer Noire: chronologie et typologie’, in: Bonifay, M., Tréglia, J.-C. (eds), Late Roman Coarse Ware 2, BAR International Series 1662 (II). Shepard, J. (2009) Mists and Portals: The Black Sea´s North Coast, in: Mango, M. (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th centuries. Zeest, I. B. (1960), Keramicheskaja tara Bospora, Moskva.

Ancient sources Apicius, De re Coqvinaria, Leipzig 1922. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, (ed. G. Moravscik), Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, Washington 1985. Geoponica sive Cassiani Basi scholastici. De re rustica eclogae. Lipsiae, in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1895. Patrologia latina database (J.-P- Migne 1844-1855), Chadwyck-Healey 1995. Bibliography Bortoli, A., Kazanski, M. (2002), Kherson and Its Region, in: Laiou, A. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Crimean Chersonesos (2003), Institute of Classical Archaeology and the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos. Curtis, R. I. (2005) ‘Sources for Production and Trade of Greek and Roman Processed Fish’, in: Bekker-Nielsen, T. (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus University Press. Ejstrud, B. (2005) ‘Size Matters: Estimating Trade of Wine, Oil and Fish-sauce from Amphorae in the First Century AD’, in: Bekker-Nielsen, T. (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus University Press. Gerolymatou, M. (2008) Agores, emporoi kai emporio sto Byzantio, Athína Gerolymatou, L. (2007) Early Byzantine deposits from Chersonesos, in: Aibabin, A., Ivakin, H., (eds.), KievCherson-Constantinople, Kiev-Simferopol-Paris.

67

SOMA 2010

Fig. 1. Greek colonies in the Black Sea (after Crimean Chersonesos 2003)

Fig. 2. Map of Cherson with cisterns marked. 1) Time of use: up to the 6th century – white circles, to the start of the 6th/7th century – black ovals; 2) Time of origin: 5th or 6th centuries – black rectangles, 6th/7th centuries– triangle, 9th or 10th centuries – polygon. Grey hashed square is the so-called ‘Fishmonger´s house’ (after Romancuk 2005, Crimean Chersonesos 2002)

68

Martina Jirouskova: The fish industry in the Northern Pontic region

Fig. 3. Examples of amphoras suitable for fish produce transport: A-Zeest 75 A, B-Zeest 75 A-similis, C-Zeest 85-similis, D-Zeest 83, E-Fish ‘table’ amphora 54. Second/third century AD. After Opait (2007) and Zeest (1960).

69

70

Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypothesis: a case study of the Celts in the north Pontic area Gennadiy Kazakevıch

National Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev, Ethnology Department, Ukraine

Introduction

and the cremation burial with early La Téne fibula from Zalissya in the area of Upper Dnipro (Machinskiy 1974: 38-9). The casting-forms for the La Téne bracelets from the Mokhovo, Goroshkovo, and Chaplin sites are also worthy of note (Eremenko 1997: 43). The jewellery of the La Téne types was widespread among the population of the Middle Dnipro basin (Fig. 1-4) and the North Pontic steppes. Some of the La Téne bracelets were produced in Olbia, were the appropriate casting-forms were found along with the La Téne fibulas in local burials (Vinogradov 1989: 182). The appearance of early La Téne imports east of the Carpathians may be explained as the result of trade contacts, gift exchange and micro-migrations of craftsmen, mercenaries and women involved in matrimonial links (Cunliffe 2000: 176).

This paper is an attempt to use an interdisciplinary approach in solving the problem of the Celtic presence in the north Pontic area. There is much literature by both archaeologists and linguists devoted to this interesting problem. As scholars rarely tend to cross disciplinary borders this caused some serious contradictions in their hypotheses. While linguists discovered traces of Celtic languages in regional ethnic and place names, many of them ignored or misinterpreted the archaeological material (e.g., Trubachev 1991: 41-5). On the other hand the archaeologists paid little or no attention to linguistic studies because their own attempts to find ‘pure’ La Téne complexes in the North Pontic area were unsuccessful (e.g., Maksymov 1999). Recent studies in Iron Age archaeology and identity (Chapman 1992; James 1999; Collis 2004) have revised such terms as ‘La Téne culture’, ‘Celtic peoples’, etc. Currently the word ‘Celtic’ is used as an umbrella term for describing the peoples of Ancient Europe and Asia Minor who used to speak Celtic dialects and only partly had some specific features of the material culture (James 1993: 9; Falileyev 2007: vii). This ‘celtosceptical’ framework allows us to provide a more complex approach to the ‘Celtic’ heritage in the north Pontic area.

Celtic-speaking La Ténized groups of the northwestern Pontic area It seems that during the 3rd c. BC the Celtic presence in north Pontic area became more evident but less understandable. The Greek epigraphic decree in honour of Protogenes informs of the Celtic military activity in the north-western Pontic area (Latyshev 1885: 37-40). It mentions the Galatai and Sciroi military union threatening Olbia and nearby Scythian tribes. While it is generally accepted that the Sciroi where a Germanic group located somewhere in the Dniester basin (but with no reliable archaeological attribution), the question of the Galatian ethnic attribution remains disputable. Some scholars put forward an idea that the decree of Protogenes, using the ethnicon Galatai, indeed meant the Bastarnae, probably a mixed CelticGermanic tribal group from the Lower Dniester area (Schukin 1994: 100). The main argument is the fact that classical sources did not distinguish the Celts (Galatians) and the Germans until the turn of the era. Another point of view considers the Galatians to be a certain Celtic group probably from the Danube area (Brujako 1999: 85). The weak point of both hypotheses is the uncertain date of the Olbian decree itself. It may describe the events of either the late 3rd c. BC (Vinogradov 1989: 181-3) or the early 2nd c. BC (Andreeva 2004: 102).

La Téne imports eastwards of the Carpathians The first contacts between the Celtic world and peoples of the north Pontic steppes date back to the beginning of the Iron Age when some elite groups of Cimmerian or ThracoCimmerian origin penetrated to the proto-Celtic Hallstat zone and brought there some new types of horse gear (Hobby 2001: 289-319, fig. 54). During the early La Téne period the contacts between the North Pontic area and central Europe weakened. There are only a few artifacts in late Hallstat - early La Téne prince burials which could be regarded as imports from Magna Scythia, e. g., the rython from the Kleinasperagl burial (Frey 2001: 136). In the lands east of the Carpathians there are dozens of sites with La Téne B-C imports (military equipment, jewellery, tools, pottery, horse gear, cult artifacts, coins) from central Europe (Eremenko 1997: 202-9). The majority of those artifacts were chance finds, while some of them originated from the complexes of local archaeological cultures. The density of La Téne finds is especially high in the area of the Milograd culture (the forest zone of today’s Ukraine and Southern Belarus), which is attributed to the Neurói tribes mentioned by Herodotus (Melnikovskaya 1967: 101, 153). Among the most notable are the complex of La Téne tools, jewellery and weapons from the Goroshkovo settlement

Currently the Bastarnae are most frequently associated with the Poieneşti-Lukashevka culture which emerged in the territory of modern Moldova at the turn of the 3rd - 2nd cc. BC. So if the decree of Protogenes referred to events of the middle of the 3 c. BC the Bastarnae hypothesis is irrelevant and the Galatians must be searched for among the Celtic groups. The closest one mentioned by the classical sources is the Britolagai of the Lower Danube area. The

71

SOMA 2010 ‘Celticness’ of this ethnicon is certain and the presence of the Celtic-speaking groups in the area is attested by the typically Celtic place-names, e.g. Noviodunum (from Celtic *nou(i)o- ‘new’ and *dūno- ‘fort’) on the right bank of the Danube and Aliobrix (‘other’ and *brig- ‘hillfort’) on the left (Sims-Williams 2006: 218-19; Falileyev 2005; Falileyev 2007: 4-9).

This situation can be explained in different ways. The Celts occupied the north-western Pontic area only for a short period of time so their archaeological traces may not be evident. During the 3rd c. BC there was a crisis in the area which led to the abandonment of numerous Scythian and Hellenistic settlements. According to some scholars this crisis could have been caused by the Galatai/Britolagoi raids (Brujako 1999: 90). Also it must be noted that the vast swamp area of the Danube delta, which was probably occupied by the Britolagoi, is currently almost inaccessible for excavations (Schukin 2005: 60). On the other hand, if the events reflected in the decree of Protogenes dated back to the early 2nd c. BC, another hypothesis must be looked for, because the only barbarian group of western origin to dominate the north-western Pontic area at that time was the Bastarnae.

At the same time, the archaeological evidence for the La Téne presence in this region is scarce. As I. Brujako generously informed this author, the excavations of the ancient hillfort at Orlovka, (Aliobrix) and other sites in the area brought only Gethic and Poieneşti-Lukashevka materials dating to 3rd - 2nd c. BC. There are only occasional La Téne finds in the delta of Dniester. For example, the bronze Montefortino A/B type helmet from Bilen’ke (Fig. 5) or golden, silver and lead Celtic coins from the Dniester coast (Alekseyev, Loboda 2004: 91-2). The finds of Celtic lead coins are of particular interest. This metal was used rarely in Celtic coinage, while in the north Pontic area colonial Greek lead coins are not infrequent. There are also some archaeological traces of contacts between Celtic and local Scythian populations in 3rd - 2nd c. BC. Those contacts are apparent in such complexes as a Scythian inhumation burial from Verkhnya Tarasivka (Lower Dnieper), with a Middle La Téne sword and fragments of a fibula (Bodyansky 1962: 273-75). The late La Téne sword was found in the burial of King Skilurus (late 2nd c. BC) in the Scythian Neapolis (Zaitsev 2003: 54-5, fig.76). It is notable that the sword was previously broken. This feature may reflect the well-attested La Téne tradition of ‘killing’ weapons before placing them in the grave. Another fine example of the long slashing sword from the mausoleum of the Scythian Neapolis dates back to the La Téne D1 period (Treister 1993, fig. 4). It was placed in the grave along with the late Etruscan bronze mirror. The closest parallels of the sword may be found among the late La Téne Celtic weapons of Switzerland (Müller 2001: 529). Some other graves of the Skilurus mausoleum contained comparably large quantities of La Téne fibulas. It may be supposed that those artefacts reflect the appearance of Celtic mercenaries in the Crimean Scythia in the 2nd to 1st c. BC.

Most scholars believe the Bastarnae to be a mixed ethnic group of Germanic, Celtic, and Gethic origin, or even a separate people coming from the Celtic-Germanic border zone of central Europe (Schukin 2005: 61). Various groups of barbarian populations were associated with the Bastarnae: the Poieneşti-Lukashevka culture followers of the Lower and Middle Dniester area, the population of both the Zarubyntsi (3-1 c. BC, Middle and Upper Dnipro), and te Przeworsk (1 c. BC, Upper Dniester) cultures (Schukin 1994: 227-32; Eremenko 1997). The emergence of these related cultures is viewed as a result of migrations from the bordering zone of the La Téne and Jastorf cultures in central Europe. The migrants mixed with the indigenous Thracian, Baltic, and Protoslavic groups in the Dniester area and Middle Dnipro basin (Pachkova 2006: 340-47). It is quite impossible to imagine that the Bastarnae were a single ethnic group occupying such a vast territory of eastern Europe. More likely, the Bastarnae ethnicon had been suggested by ancient sources to define all the poorly known barbarian populations from between Dniester and Dnipro. It is probable that this population did not identify itself with the Bastarnae ‘umbrella term’ at all. While the Poieneşti-Lukashevka culture demonstrates the closest links with the ‘Germanic’ Jastorf cultural zone, the presence of some Celtic component in this culture is tangible, as well in such late La Téne complexes as the Bovshiv settlement near the modern town Galich, or in the dozens of La Téne imports (Bandrivskiy, Josypyshyn 1997). Some ancient sources argued that the Bastarnae were related to the Celtic Scordisci (Liv. XL. 57. 7). The traces of the Celtic-speaking population that once inhabited the Dniester region are visible in several place names, e.g. the undoubtedly Celtic Eractum and Karrodounon (Claud. Ptol. III. 5. 15). The former corresponds to the PoieneştiLukashevka settlements in the Upper Dniester area (Zubarev 1999: 73). There is also an ethnic name Olatikon in the Bukovyna region which may hypothetically be reconstructed as [Ga]latikon (Falileyev 2007: 7). It may be suggested that most classical sources called the Britolagoi, Sciroi and some other tribal groups of western origin the ‘Bastarnae’. If this hypothesis is correct the existence of

Earlier, in 3rd to 2nd c. BC the so-called votive complexes appeared in the north Pontic and Azov areas. As J. Zaitsev proved, the rites of such complexes came from the Balkan and Danubian region (Zaitsev 2007: 266). Among the Scythian and Sarmatian jewellery and horse gear, those complexes usually contained Montefortino-type helmets, imported bronze vessels and horse gear, e.g. Vesela Dolyna, Maryevka in the north-western Black Sea littoral (Treister 1993: 791; Redina, Simonenko 2002). It might be possible that the appearance of such votive complexes reflects the contacts between Celtic and Iranian populations in the north Pontic area. While there are undeniably Celtic place names and many cance La Téne finds in the north-western part of the Black Sea littoral, it must be stressed that there are no traces of undoubted La Téne settlements or burials in the region. 72

Gennadiy Kazakevıch: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypothesis certain non-La Téne but Celtic-speaking ethnic group must be recognized.

are also some finds of late La Téne military equipment near the Bosporan boundaries. The two Novo Mestotype helmets from the Sarmatian burials of Boiko-Ponura (Fig. 7) and Yashkul (Russian Federation) are among the most noteworthy. Such helmets were produced during the 1st c. BC by the Celtic Taurisci and there are only a few Novo Mesto-type helmets coming from outside the Middle Danube region (Mikhaljević, Dizdar 2007: 125-126; Božič 2001: 475, 477). The Balkan origin of these weapons corresponds with Appian’s remark that Mithridates VI maintained close relations with the Celts of the Danube basin (App. Mithr. 109). It is likely that after the death of Mithridates VI his Celtic mercenaries melted into the nearby barbarian population and the finds of late La Téne weaponry from the north-eastern part of the Black Sea littoral may indicate this process.

Celtic and ‘post-Celtic’ presence in Bospor In the north-eastern part of the Black Sea littoral there is evidence for a Celtic presence as well. There are representations of the ‘Celtic’ oval shield from the Hellenistic Bospor kingdom. In Hellenistic art the oval shield (thureos) was the most frequently used iconographic marker of the Celtic warrior (Bienkowski 1927). At least partly this stereotype was based on Celtic beliefs. It is known that among Celts the oval shield was believed to have had certain apotropaic powers (Polyaen. IV. 6. 17; Athenaeus, IV, 40, 154 A-C). Some scholars concluded that the appearance of Bosporan oval shield representations reflects the presence of Celtic mercenaries in the Bospor kingdom (Pruglo 1966: 205-13). Recently it was proved that the oval shield forms were widely distributed among non-Celtic peoples, so the simple association of the Bosporan representations with the Celts is questionable (Gunby 2002). Although the discussion about Bosporan oval shields is far from over, it must be noted that the origin of different representations may have quite different explanations.

After the La Téne culture declined in central Europe some of its artistic traditions were inherited by the Sarmatians of the north Pontic area (Treister 2005). It is noteworthy that some sources mentioned a few Celtic-looking place and ethnic names close to the Bospor kingdom. The most intriguing is the Boisci ethnicon which may be associated with the ethnic name Boii of Celtic origin from central Europe (Falileyev 2010). This fact may be explained as a result of the Gothic migrations which brought to the lands east of the Carpathians a population of central European origin. Anthropological studies confirmed that among the migrants there were some descendants of Iron Age Celts (Rudych 2004: 394). At the same time M. Schukin states that in the ‘Gothic’ Cherniakhov culture some traditions of La Téne craftsmanship were revived (Schukin 2005: 165). So the appearance of the Celtic-looking place and ethnic names east of the Carpathians during the Late Imperial period may be explained as a result of the ‘post-Celtic’ central European influence.

The earliest Bosporan representation of the oval shield comes from the fresco showing the Egyptian Isis warship (mid 3 c. BC) in Nyphaeum. The four shields of almost rectangular form are depicted on the ship (see Vinogradov 1999). It was suggested that these representations may be interpreted either as a Ptolemaic dynastical emblem (Eichberg 1987: 193) or typical elements of 3rd c. BC warship equipment (Höckmann 1999: 318-19). Although it is still possible to suggest that a Ptolemaic diplomatic mission had been accompanied by some Celtic guards, who played an important role in Egyptian military forces. Later the oval shield representation appeared on the coins of Leucon II, King of Bospor (late 3rd c. BC), but the historical context of their emergence is unclear. Also the oval shield representations were frequently used on small terracotta statuettes of ‘warriors’ (late 3rd to 1st c. BC). Many of them have close parallels in the Hellenistic art of the Mediterranean basin, e.g. the statuette of the Celtic mercenary commemorating the Egyptian victory in the Battle of Raphia c. 217 BC (Cunliffe 2000: 181). Considering the fact that diplomatic contacts between Egypt and the Bospor kingdom during the 3rd c. BC were particularly close, and many Egyptian works of art arrived in Bosporan territory at that time (see Treister 1985), it may be suggested that the most of the oval shield representations were influenced by Ptolemaic art (Fig. 6).

Conclusion The comparison of archaeological and linguistic sources gives reliable results that allow us to propose different types of both direct and indirect Celtic influence in the north Pontic area. The direct Celtic influence in the region developed because of: (1) craftsmen, mercenaries, and women from the central European La Téne zone during the early La Téne period; (2) Celtic-speaking war bands and settlers of the poly-ethnic La Ténized PoieneştiLukashevka and Zarubintsy cultures (Middle to Late La Téne); (3) Celtic mercenaries from the Danube area at the time of the Mithridatic wars. Indirect influence was caused by the: (1) contacts of the Hellenistic Bospor kingdom with Ptolemaic Egypt; (2) the long duration of the La Tene traditions in European Barbaricum in the early Imperial period; (3) penetration of the ‘post-Celtic’ central European population during the late Imperial period.

In 63 ВС the Celtic mercenaries of Mithridates VI Eupatoros, led by their chieftain Bitoitos, are mentioned by the Greek sources in the Bospor kingdom (App. Mithr. 111). Their presence is confirmed by finds of late La Tène jewellery on the acropolis of Panticapaeum. There

73

SOMA 2010 Bibliography

Machinskiy D., 1974, ‘Kelty na zemliah k vostoku ot Karpat’, in Tikhanova M (ed), Kelty i keltskie jazyki. Moscow. Maksymov E., 1999, ‘Pro perebuvannia keltiv v Ukraini’, in Terpilovskiy R. (ed), Etnokulturni procesy v Pivdenno-Skhidniy Evropi v I tysiacholitti do n. e. Kyiv, Lviv. Melnikovskaya O., 1967, Plemena Juzhnoj Belorussii v rannem zheleznom veke, Moscow: Nauka. Mihaljević M., Dizdar M., 2007, ‘Late La Téne bronze helmet from the river Sava near Stara Gradiška’, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3.s.XL, pp. 117-146. Müller F., 2001, ‘Les armes celtique de la Zihl prés de Port’ in S. Moscati (ed.) Les Celtes. Paris. Pachkova S. P., 2006, Zarubineckaja kultura i latenizirovannye kultury Evropy, Kyiv: Instytut Arheologii. Pruglo V., 1966, ‘Pozdneellinisticheskie bosporskie terracoty, izobrazhajushchiye voinov’, in A. Boltunova (ed.), Kul’tura antichnogo mira. Moscow. Redina E., Simonenko A., 2002, ‘Klad konca II – I v. do n. e. iz Veseloj Doliny v krugu analogichnyh drevnostej Vostochnoj Evropy’, Materialy I issledovaniya po arkheologii Kubani 2, pp. 78-96. Rudych T., 2004, ‘Antropologichniy sklad nasellenia mohylnyka cherniakhivs’koyi kultury ChernelivRus’kiy’, Arkheologichni vidkryttia v Ukraini 6, pp. 388-396. Schukin M. B. 1994, Na rubezhe er. Opyt istorikoarheologicheskoy rekonstrukcii politicheskih sobytiy III v. do n.e. – I v. n.e. v Vostochnoy i Centralnoy Evrope, Sankt-Petersburg: Farn Ltd. Schukin M. B., 2005, Gotskiy put (goty, Rim i cherniakhovskaya kultura). Saint-Petersburg: Filologicheskiy Fakultet Sankt-Peterburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Sims-Williams P., 2006, Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor. Oxford & Boston: Blackwell Publishing. Treister M., 1985, ‘Bospor i Egipet v III v. do n. e.’, Vestnik drevnej istorii 1, pp. 126-139. Treister M., 1993, ‘The Celts in the North Pontic Area: a Reassessment’, in: Antiquity, 67, 257, 789-804. Treister M., 2005, ‘La Téne Elements in the Fine Metalwork of the North-Western Pontic Area in the First Century AD: Some Characteristic Features of Ornaments of the Petriki-Porogi Type’ in Dobrzaсska H. & Megaw V. & Poleska P. (eds.), Celts on the Margin. Krakow. Trubačev O., 1991, Etnogenez i kul’tura drevneyshyh slavian. Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya. Moscow: Nauka. Vinogradov Ju., 1989, Politicheskaya istoriya Olviyskogo polisa. VII – I vv. do n. e. Istoriko-epigraficheskoe issledovanie. Moscow: Nauka. Vinogradov Ju., 1999, Der staatbesuch der “Isis” im Bosporos, Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 5.4, pp. 271–302.

Alekseev V., Loboda P., 2004, Antichnye i srednevekovye monety Severnogo Prichernomorja. Vol. 3. Odessa: Polis. Andreeva, 2004, ‘Esche raz k voprosu o datirovke dekreta v chest’ Protogena’, in Bosporskiy fenomen 5, pp. 95103. Bandrivskiy, J. & Josypyshyn, J., 1997, ‘Kelty na zahodi Ukrainy’, in: Ukraina v mynulomu 9, pp. 8-16. Bienkowski P., 1927, Les Celtes dans les arts mineurs Greco-Romaine. Cracovie: Imprimerie de l’Université des Jagiellons. Bodianskiy A., 1962, ‘Skifskoe pogrebenie s latenskim mechom v Srednem Podneprov’e’, Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1, pp. 272-276. Brujako I. V. 1999, ‘O sobytiyakh III v. do n. e. v SeveroZapadnom Prichernomorye (chetyre konceptsii krizisa)’, Vestnik drevney istorii 3, pp. 76-91. Chapman M., 1992, The Celts: the construction of a myth. London: Macmillan Collis J., 2004, The Celts: origins, myth and inventions. London: Tempus Cunliffe B. 2000, The Ancient Celts, Harmondsworth: Penguin Eichberg M., 1987, Scutum. Die Entwicklung einer italisch-etruskischen Schieldform von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit Caesars. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Eremenko V.E., 1997, ‘Keltskaja vual’ i zarubineckaja kultura, Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo SanktPeteburgskogo Universiteta. Falileyev A., 2005, ‘Celtic Presence in Dobrudja: Onomastic Evidence’ in: Cojocaru V. (ed.), Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, Iaşi, pp. 291-303. Falileyev A., 2007, Celtic Dacia. Personal names, placenames and ethnic names of Celtic origin in Dacia and Scythia Minor, Aberystwyth: CMCS Falileyev, 2010, ‘Keltskie lingvisticheskie ostatki JugoVostochnoj Evropy: nekotorye rezultaty i perspektivy issledovania’. Frey O. H., 2001, ‘La formation de la culture de La Tène’, S. Moscati (ed.), Les Celtes, Paris, pp. James S., 1993, Exploring the World of the Celts, London, New York: Thames and Hudson. Gunby J., 2002, ‘Oval Shield Representations on the Black Sea Littoral’, Oxford journal of archaeology 19(4), pp. 359–365 Hobby J. R., 2001, The use of the horse in warfare and burial ritual in prehistoric Europe: including historical, archaeological and iconographic evidence for Celtic cavalry in Central and Western Europe (c. 700-50 BC). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Höckmann O., 1999, ‘Naval and Other Graffity from Nymphaion’, Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Syberia 5.4, pp. 302–356. Latyshev, B., 1885, Inscriptiones orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae. Vol. 1. Petropoli. 74

Gennadiy Kazakevıch: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypothesis Zaitsev Ju., 2003, Neapol’ Skifskiy (III v. do n. e. – III v. n. e.), Simpheropol: Universum. Zaitsev Ju. Kompleks iz Gevani (k probleme hronologii III v. do n. e.), Bosporskiy fenomen 8.1, pp. 258-268.

Zubarev V. ‘Rimskie dorogi v mezhdurechye Istra (Dunaya) i Tirasa (Dnestra) po dannym Klavdiya Ptolemeya’, Vestnik drevney istorii 3, pp. 67-75.

Figs. 1-4. Early La Téne imports from Pekari (Middle Dnipro area). National Museum of the History of Ukraine.

75

SOMA 2010

Fig. 5. Montefortino-type helmet from Bilen’ke. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskiy Regional Museum.

Fig. 6. Right: statuette of a Celtic mercenary from Egypt (after Cunliffe 2000). Left: ‘Warrior’ statuettes from Bospor (after Pruglo 1966).

Fig. 7. Novo Mesto-type helmet from Boiko-Ponura (after Treister 1993). 76

The problem of dating the settlements of Zarubinian archaeological culture in the Middle Dnepr valley, with help of ancient imports Kateryna Korniienko

National Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev, Ukraine Ancient ceramics can be found in almost every Zarubinian settlement of the Middle Dnepr valley. It is of great value for the surveyors of Zarubinian culture, as the key dates of this culture are considerably based on rather closely-dated stamps of ancient amphorae found in the settlements of the Middle Dnepr valley. Other finds, such as ancient cutlery and remains of amphorae without stamps are generally dated more widely and are, as a rule, of less importance and are used for wide dating (Pachkova, 2006, p.106).

other winemaking centres of ancient times: Rhodes, Fasos, Paros, Sinope, etc. The peculiar qualities of parts of these amphorae (rim, handles, foot) as well as the content of the pictures and inscriptions of the stamps, suggest that this group of finds date to the same period as the imports from Kos. Synopean amphorae were circulating during the whole Hellenistic period up to the beginning of the 1st century A.D. However the imports from the island of Fasos stopped at the beginning of the 2nd century B.C. (Zeest, 1960, p.21). The Rhodian production, according to the analysis of the political situation of the Greek poleis of the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., was circulating mostly at the beginning of the 2nd century B.C. (Also tableware of this period can sometimes be found.)

In comparison to the Scythian memorials there are many less finds of ancient origin in Zarubinian memorials. But the fact of their existence alone testifies that at that time the ancient imports continued to flow into the Middle Dnepr valley. The small numbers of finds should be compared to the previous epoch, as well as the narrow range of the goods. This fact to some extent can be explained by the economic downturn in the ancient cities of the Northern Prichernomorye. Is it also necessary to point out the geographical coincidences of these finds in some areas where ancient imports of the Scythian period (Kanevsshyna, Cherkasshyna) are also encountered. The commercial relations of the Zarubinian tribes to the ancient south because of this look like a traditional continuation of relations established in the previous period (Maksimov, 1972, p.91-93).

There is one more group of ancient ceramics found in the Zarubinian settlements: red polished tableware of Early Roman times, amphorae of light-yellow colour with a mixture of black particles of pyroxene in the paste, and amphorae of the canonical brown clay mixed with sand. These all date to the Early Roman period – 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D. (Vyazmyatina, 1962, p.158; Zeest, 1960, p.109). According to E.V. Maksimov, out of the 22 items identified as ancient imports, 7 were dated to the Late Hellenistic and Early Hellenistic periods; they were excavated at Kiselevka hill, in Chodorov, Zarubintsi (Malaya Gorka), on the Babyna Hora (Buchak), Pylypenkova Hora, in Zhabotyn and Subotov. In Zhabotyn and Zarubyntsi there was more of the Late Hellenistic material than Early Hellenistic material, at the Pylypenkova Hora it was rather even, and in Subotov the Early Roman period material prevails over the Late Hellenistic (Maksimov, 1972, p.95) Therefore judging by the amphorae material the Zarubinian settlements of the Middle Dnepr valley date from the 2nd half of the 3rd century B.C. up to the 1st century A.D. But the finds of amphorae stamps suggest this wide range of time. At Pylypenkova Hora in cellar #32 of house #18 a fragment was found of a rim and a double handle of a Kos amphora with a stamp. Grakov’s sequence dates this to 230-220 B.C. From the same site excavators found the remains of other Koan amphorae together with the remains of Fasos amphorae in houses #2, 4, 6, 15, 18, 22, 34. Therefore the excavator of this site considers that these objects date from the last decades of the 3rd to the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., to a time corresponding with the coincidence of Fasos and Koan imports (Maksimov 1972, 114). The latest arrivals of such ancient amphorae to the Zarubinian sites are dated to the 1st century B.C. At the site of ancient Monastyriok the brown-clay amphorae remains are represented by mixed

During excavations of the settlements it was noted that the amount of ancient material amounted to 3 to 15-20% of finds, and on average 8-10% (Maksimov, 1972, p.93). On the map showing ancient import routes into the Middle Dnepr valley, it is noticeable that they were concentrated on the right bank of the Dnepr, especially in the surroundings of Kanev and Kiev, on the rivers Ros and Tyasmin (Maksimov, 1972, p.93). In the Zarubinian settlements the most frequent to be found are the remains of amphorae from the island of Kos. As stated by the experts (Zeest, 1960, p. 104-107; Vyazmyatina, 1962, p.152-153) the Kos amphorae differ in a few invariable features (pink-brownish clay, lightgreen coat that covers the whole surface, double handles, sometimes with stamps). Mostly, Kos amphorae were circulating to the Northern Prichernomorye in the second half of 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. and a little less in the 1st half of the 1st century B.C. (Zeest, 1960, p.104). In the 2nd cent. B.C. the imports of cheap Koan wine were the most popular. Along with the Koan remains, but to a smaller amount, the Zarubinian settlements reveal remains of amphorae of 77

SOMA 2010 fragments of vases (Maksimov and Petrashenko 1988, fig. 59, 16, 17, 20). As mentioned earlier, the dates of these amphorae are fixed between the 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. The later arrival at the site of Monastyriok can be proved by the finds of remains of red-clay dishes with a round foot that date to the 1st century B.C., and the remains of a red-polished cup with horizontal rim gutter may even be 2nd century B.C. (Maksimov 1982, 7-31). In conclusion it is fair to say that analyses of the amphorae material from Pylypenkova Hora indicate the existence of two phases of trade in antiquity to the Zarubinian tribes of the Middle Dnepr valley. The first phase covers the Late Hellenistic period. From the last third of the 3rd century B.C. to the first half of the 1st century B.C. there might have been a break in the trade that lasted for a few decades (connected with the destruction of Olbia and other ancient centres in the middle of the 1st century B.C. by the Dacian king Burebista, as indicated by historical and archaeological sources. Starting from the end of the 1st century B.C. after the reconstruction of Olbia, the main transit centre for Greek products to the Dnepr valley, many products of popular goods began to flow again and represented the second phase in the history of commercial relations between the ancient south and the Dnepr valley; the finds are mostly Early Roman. This phase was shorter and lasted until the middle of the 1st century A.D. This can be seen especially by finds from Zarubinian settlements, and in particular Subotov (Maksimov 1960, 37).

References Vyazmyatina M.I. Zolota Balka. – K., 1962. - p.152-153, 158. Maksimov E.V. Pamiatniki zarubinieckogo tipa w Subotowie // KSIA AN USSR. – 1960. - №9. - p.29-42. Maksimov E.V. Srednee Podnieprovie na rubieze nashej ery. – K.,1972. -178 p. Maksimov E.V. Zarubinieckaja kultura na territorii USSR. – K.,1982. – p.7-31. Maksimov E.V., Petrashenko V.A. Slawianskie pamiatniki u siela Monastyriok na Sredniem Dnieprie. – K., 1988. - pic.59, 16, 17, 20. Pachkova S.P. Zarubinietskaja kultura I lateniezirowannyje kultury Evropy. – K., 2006. - p.106. Zeest I.B. Keramicheskaja tara Bospora // MIA. - 1960. №69. – 178 p.

78

Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion of some Chersonesos settlements based on cartographic data Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina

Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Chersonesos Taurica, dating mostly to the 5th century BC, is located on a promontory jutting into the sea. Almost 70% of the perimeter of the ancient city was constructed on the seashore. Consequently there has been a constant, gradual destruction by the waves and surf of the coastline settlement – the irreversible processes of erosion. The Chersonesos sea coast has been subjected to abrasion since the founding of the city and continues to this day. Until now, we cannot say exactly how much of the ancient city has been lost over the nearly two thousand years of its existence. Our research was aimed at trying to answer this question using data mapping.

It represents the early medieval church, which existed from the 6th to the 11th centuries (Fig. 5).

The archives of the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos hold more than 100 maps, diagrams and plans of parts of the investigated settlement, produced in the 19th and 20th centuries. These plans include those drawn up by the military engineer Martin Ivanovich Skubetovym and by the architect of the Chersonesos museum, Nikolai Mikhailovich Yanysheva, and also by the archaeologist Alexander Nikolayevich Shcheglov. Using this information, as well as contemporary investigations of the area, we attempted to trace the dynamics of shoreline abrasion of Chersonesos Taurica, based on reference points. Among the plans and drawings available to us we selected those which recorded the coastline corresponding to the date of the plan of each particular part of the settlement. In total we selected 25 plans and diagrams to work from.

- Architectural structures between Uvarov and the Eastern Basilica, dating from the 5th to the 6th centuries (Fig. 8).

- The ‘Six-pillar’ church, named for its number of pillars supporting the dome, and dating from the 11th century (Fig. 6). - The ‘Uvarov’ basilica, discovered in the years 18511853 during excavations under the leadership of Count Uvarov. The edifice was built in the 6th and 7th centuries and is the largest not only in the Chersonesos, but throughout medieval Crimea (Fig. 7).

- The ‘Eastern’ basilica and cruciform church, built between the 5th and 7th centuries, are located on the north-eastern tip of the city. They were opened in 1876 by D. V. Aynalov and subsequently excavated in 1908 (Fig. 9). These are our selected reference points. After digital processing of the selected plans the drawings were produced by field research in the area and linked to plans for the surviving architectural details of buildings and, most importantly, measurements made with a laser rangefinder, a theodolite and tape measure for the borders of the modern shorelines compared to the plans drawn up at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. It should be noted that the measurements were obtained in difficult conditions, i.e. from cliffs 12m high.

Our next step was to determine the reference points, as far as possible, covering the coastline of Chersonesos. Such reference points were available on selected plans and architectural details along the northern and eastern coasts of the Chersonesos settlement (Fig.1).

As a result of these calculations, we obtained data on the destruction of the shoreline over the past 50 and 100 years, along the northern and north-eastern borders of the Chersonesos settlement.

In total eight such points were identified as follows (from west to east): - The first tower, the first curtain fortifications of Chersonesos. The tower was built in the 9th and 10th centuries (Fig. 2),

For each of the above reference points the results are: - The first tower, the first curtain: Based on the plan of the 1959 excavation, the loss of shoreline and architectural details is approx. 1.80m (Fig. 10).

- The 1932 Basilica, named after the year its excavation began, dating from the 6th century (Fig.3). - The 1935 Basilica, also named after the year its excavation began (discovered by G. D. Belov), and dated to the 6th century (Fig. 4).

- The 1932 Basilica: Based on the plan of the 1932 excavations the loss of coastline and architectural fragments is not less than 1.5m. However in this case the measurements cannot be entirely correct, due to the fact that in this place to prevent the destruction of

- The ‘Northern’ basilica, located on the north coast of settlement, was located in 1878 and excavated in 1893.

79

SOMA 2010 the coast in the late 1970s spoil was dumped from the excavations of G. D. Belov (Fig. 11).

and indicate its real size at certain periods of history. New research will also help in the reconstruction of the architectural planning of the coastal settlement blocks as a whole and of individual buildings and structures in particular. In addition, new studies will assist the necessary preservation of monuments and contribute to our understanding of the planning and development of the coastal fortifications.

- The 1935 Basilica: Based on the plan of the 1935 excavations, the loss of shoreline and architectural buildings is not less than 1.8m. However, as was the case with the 1932 Basilica, due to the dumping of spoil on the shore, the measurements cannot be reliable (Fig. 12). - Northern Basilica: Based on the plan of the 1893 excavations the loss of coastline and architectural details range from 1.70 - 2m. Based on the plan of the 1981 excavations, which were made to verify the previous data, the loss ranged from 0.3 - to 0.8m (average 0.6m) (Fig. 13).

References Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №819. (in Russian). Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №1400, D. №1189, D. №1606. (in Russian). Archive State Reserve “Chersonesos Tavricheskiy”. D. №2079 (in Russian). Blavatskii V. D. 1958. O podvodnoi arheologii (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheologia. №3 – p. 73-89. Blavatsky V. D. , Kuzishin V. I. 1961. Podvodnye razvedki v 1958g. (in Russian) // Kratkie Soobscheniy Instituta Arheologii. №83 Blavatsky V. D., Kuzishin V. I. 1959. Podvodnye razvedki drevney Fanagorii (in Russian) // Vesnik AN SSSR. №1. Blavatsky V. D. 1961. Podvodnye raskopki Fanagorii v 1959 g. (in Russian) // Soovetskay Arheologia. №1. p. 277-279. Blavatsky V. D. 1961. Raboty podvodnoy AzovoChernomorskoi ekspeditsii 1960g. (in Russian) // Sovetskay Archeologia. №4. p. 150. Blavatsky V. D. 1962. Podvodnye razvedky v Olvii (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheologia. №3. p. 225-234. Blavatskii V. D. 1965. Podvodno-archeologicheskay ekspiditsiy 1962g. (in Russian) // Sovetskay Archeologia. №1. p. 272-275. Blavatsky V. D. 1965. Technika podvodnyh arheologicheskih rabot (in Russian) // Arheologia i estestvennye nauki. №129. p. 268-278. Blavatsky V. D. Peters B. G. 1967. Podvodnye arheologicheskie issledoivaniy v rayone Evpatorii (in Russian) // Kratkie Soobscheniy Instituta Arheologii. №104. p. 73-78. Blavatsky V. D., Peters B. G. 1969. Korablekrusheniy kontsa IV-nachala III vv do N.E. okolo Donuzlava (in Russian) // Sovetskay Arheollogia. №3. p. 151-158. Blavattsky V. D., Peters B. G. 1969. Priemy podvodnyh arheologicheskih rabot pry izuchenii ostatkov drevnego korablekrushenia (in Russian) // Morskie podvodnnye issledovaniy. p. 339-342. Farmakovskii B.V. 1915. Olviy (in Russian). p. 23. Farmakovskii B.V. 1924. Otchet o raskopkah v Olviy v 1924g. (in Russian) // SGAIMK. Vip. 1, p. 145 (fig.3). Karasev A.I. 1948. Oboronitelnie sooruzheniy Olvii (in Russian) // KSIIMK. Vip. XXII, p. 32. Kolli L.P. 1909. Sledy drevnei kulturi na dne morskom (in Russian) // Izvestiy Tavricheskoi uchenoi arhivnoi komissii. Simferopol, № 43, p. 125-137.

- The Six pillared church: Based on plans for the excavations in 1893 and 1908 the loss of shoreline and architectural details of the structure range from 2m – 2.7m (Fig. 14). - The Uvarov Basilica: Based on the plan of excavations 1901 and 1904 the loss of shoreline and, accordingly, architectural details, ranges from 3.30m - to 4.8m. On the plan of 1953 the loss amounted to between 1.3m 2.4m (Fig. 15). - The Architectural structures between Uvarov and the Eastern Basilica, dating from the 5th to 6th centuries: Based on the plan of 1892, the loss of coastline and architectural details is 2.2m (Fig. 16). - The Eastern Basilica and the cruciform church: Based on the plans of 1908 - 1909 and 1938, the loss of shoreline and architectural details ranges from 1.70m 2.4m (Fig. 17). As a result, it appears that the abrasion of the northern coast of the Chersonesos settlement averages approx. 2.3 - 2.5m per century. This allows a certain degree of probability for calculations of the abrasion of the shoreline of the ancient city at a particular historical period. Therefore we can assume that at the turn of our era the coastline was approx. 15m further seaward. Using these data we can calculate the area of the Chersonesos settlement at a specific historical period and identify missing areas. For example if we take, again, the turn of our era, it appears that over two millennia abrasion has destroyed an area of about 7 hectares, accounting for one fifth of the modern area of urban development. The figures are approximate, requiring further research and calculations, based on the abrasion of the shore at each specific site, as well as underwater investigation of the coastal strip and drawing of detailed bathymetric maps. Future research, coupled with underwater investigation of the shallow submerged part of the settlement at Quarantine Bay, will help restore the topography of the ancient city,

80

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion 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. Orbeli R.A. 1945 Gidroarheologiy – Podvodnie istoricheskie iziskaniy bliz drevnih grecheskih gorodov na Chernomorscom poberezhie (in Russian) // Sudopodiem. №1. p. 140-176. Orbeli R. A. 1938 Podvodnye istoricheskie izyskaniy i zadachi EPRONa (in Russian) // EPRON. № XXIIIXXV. – p. 343-346.

Fig. 1 Reference points along the northern an

Orbeli R. A. 1940. Gidroarheologicheskaya karta SSSR (in Russian) // EPRON, XXVI-XXVII, p. 177-187. Orbeli R. A. 1938 Cheln (drevnyy lodka-odnoderevka) (in Russian) // EPRON. №XXIII-XXV, p. 345-357. Orbeli R. A. 1947. Issledovaniy i izhyskaniy. Materialy po istorii podvoodnogo truda s drevneishih vremen do nashih dney ( in Russian). M.-L., p. 283. Orbeli R. A. 1938. Za razvitie podvoodnoi arheologii (in Russian) // EPRON. №XXIII-XXV, p. 359-365. Shilik K. K. 1987. Issledovaniy antichnoi Akry (in Russian) //Arheologicheskie otkritiy 1985. p. 632. Shilik K. K. 1984. Lokalizitsia antichnoi Akry kak primer kompleksnogo analiza v istorico-geografichedskih issledovaniyh (in Russian) // Kompleksnye metody v izuchennii istorii s drevneishih vremen do nashih dney. p. 108-111. Shilik K. K. 1984. Reaboty Bosporskogo otryda (in Russian) //Arheologicheskie otkritiy 1984g. 1986. p. 493. Uvarov A.S. 1851. Issledovanie o drevnostyh Yzhnoi Rossii i beregov Chernogo moriy (in Russian). Vip. 1. SPB, p. 40. Uvarov A.S. 1851. Issledovanie o drevnostyh Yzhnoi Rossii i beregov Chernogo moriy (in Russian). Vip. 1. SPB, p. 40.

eastern

coasts

Fig. 1b. Reference point along the northern an

d

d

eastern coasts

Fig. 1c. Reference points along the

d

northern an

81

eastern coasts

SOMA 2010

Fig. 2 The first tower, the first curtain of defensive fortifications

Fig. 2b. The first tower, the first curtain of defensive fortifications

82

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 2c. The first tower, the first curtain of the defensive fortifications

Fig. 3a. The 1932 Basilica

Fig. 3b. The 1932 Basilica

83

SOMA 2010

Fig. 4a. The 1935 Basilica

Fig. 3c. The 1932 Basilica

Fig. 4b. The 1935 Basilica

84

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 4c. The 1935 Basilica

Fig. 5a. Northern Basilica

Fig. 5b. The Northern Basilica

85

SOMA 2010

Fig. 6a. The Six-pillared Church

Fig. 5c. The Northern Basilica

Fig. 6b. The Six-pillared Church

Fig. 6c. The Six-pillared Church

86

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 7a. The Uvarov Basilica

Fig. 7b. The Uvarov Basilica

Fig. 6d. The Six-pillared Church Fig. 7c. The Uvarov Basilica

87

SOMA 2010

Fig. 7d. The Uvarov Basilica

88

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 7f. The Uvarov Basilica

Fig. 7e. The Uvarov Basilica

Fig. 8b. Architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica

Fig. 8a. Architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica (dating from the 5th to 6th centuries)

89

SOMA 2010

Fig. 8c. Architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica

Fig. 8d. Architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica

Fig. 8e. Architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica

90

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 9a. The Eastern Basilica and Cruciform Church

Fig. 9b. The Eastern Basilica and Cruciform Church

Fig. 9d. The Eastern Basilica and Cruciform Church

Fig. 9c. The Eastern Basilica and Cruciform Church

Fig. 9e. The Eastern Basilica and the Cruciform Church

91

SOMA 2010

Fig. 10a. Loss of shoreline by the First Tower, the first curtain

Fig. 11a. Loss of shoreline and architectural fragments by the 1932 Basilica

Fig. 10b. Loss of shoreline by the First Tower, the first curtain

Fig. 11b. Loss of shoreline and architectural fragments by the 1932 Basilica

92

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 12a. Loss of shoreline and architectural buildings by the 1935 Basilica

Fig. 13b. Loss of coastline and architectural details by the Northern Basilica

Fig. 12 b. Loss of shoreline and architectural buildings by the 1935 Basilica

Fig. 14a. Loss of coastline and architectural details by the Six-pillared Church

Fig. 13a. Loss of coastline and architectural details by the Northern Basilica 93

SOMA 2010

Fig. 14b. Loss of coastline and architectural details by the Six-pillared Church

Fig. 15b. Loss of shoreline and architectural details by the Uvarov Basilica

Fig. 16 Loss of coastline and architectural structures between the Uvarov and Eastern Basilica

Fig. 15a. Loss of shoreline and architectural details by the Uvarov Basilica

94

Victor V. Lebedinsky and Julia A. Pronina: Preliminary results of studies of shoreline abrasion

Fig. 17b. Loss of shoreline by the Eastern Basilica and the Cruciform Church

Fig. 17a. Loss of shoreline by the Eastern Basilica and the Cruciform Church

95

96

Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić

Croatian Conservation Institute, Department for Underwater Archaeology, Croatia

Introduction1

all of us who love our sea that we can discover its beauty and the secrets it hides.

The Department for Underwater Archaeology exists and operates within the Croatian Conservation Institute and, as the leading team in the area of underwater archaeology. It carries out systematic and protective research of underwater archaeological sites, conducts underwater surveys and explorations in rivers and lakes and participates in expert surveys of numerous already known and newly found sites along the Croatian coastline, as well as in inland waters.

1. Sunken architecture on the Vižula peninsula near Medulin Since 1995, the Division for Archaeological Heritage of the Ministry of Culture, today the Department for Underwater Archaeology of the Croatian Conservation Institute, has carried out archaeological research of the submerged part of the architectural complex of a luxurious Roman villa on the Vižula peninsula by Medulin. As well as a residential part with ancillary production and thermal bath contents, the complex has an operational quay – a waterfront with several berths and other harbour and warehousing structures. The whole complex was created in the period from the 1st to the 5th century AD.

The Department’s field of work covers a large time span and encompasses prehistory, classical antiquity, the Byzantine period and the Middle Ages, post-medieval shipwrecks dating from the 16th to the 18th centuries and shipwrecks and sunken aircraft from World War I and World War II. The Department is also involved in exploration and research of submerged Roman period architecture, Roman villas and harbour objects, nowadays located below the sea’s surface, e.g. at the Vižula peninsula near Medulin.

The shoreline part of this complex is located in the tidal area, and is today partially in the sea. Natural erosion brought about by wave action, the drainage of rainwater and the human factor have gradually changed the configuration of the land and the seacoast. In a similar way they have made an impact on the architectural remains, which are today visible mostly in the foundation footings. These facts spurred underwater archaeological research, documentation and repair of the whole architectural complex. During the investigation, at least eight structural complexes have been observed on the peninsula, some of which are below the surface, two of them having port features. The structures are labelled with letters from A to H.

The most important shipwrecks from the period of classical antiquity are the shipwreck at the Čavlin shallow near Murter with its cargo of Lamboglia 2 amphorae, the shipwreck in Vela Dolina bay on Mljet with a cargo of late Roman amphorae dating from the 4th century AD, and the shipwreck off Sutivan on Brač with a cargo of sarcophagi and other architectural elements. Research has been initiated at locations near the Stoba promontory on Mljet and the islet of Merara near Rogoznica, where various types of Byzantine amphorae have been found. Post-medieval shipwrecks have also been explored: a shipwreck from the 16th century in the Sv. Pavao shallow off Mljet, with its important cargo of eight bronze cannons, commercial goods and Iznik pottery of Oriental provenance. The Murter shipwreck that has been dated to the early 17th century contains wares from Nürnberg and Murano glass. Research has also been conducted in the vicinity of Premuda, on the battleship Szent Istvan, one of the largest wrecks in the Adriatic Sea. All these examples, and the recent discovery of the B-24 Liberator class bomber near Vis, confirm that the Croatian sea bed shelters rich and abundant heritage. In the end, it is very important to underline the necessary cooperation between local divers and the State institutions responsible for the protection of Croatian underwater cultural heritage: the Ministry of Culture and the Croatian Conservation Institute. It is only through the cooperation and efforts of

The architectural remains of Structure A lie on a pebbled beach in the tidal zone. The wall footings are visible, an apse being also visible among them. Because of certain clues, such as a floor of impermeable mortar within the apse, it can be assumed that it was a pool and was part of the baths complex. The remains of architecture in the footings can be seen in the sea in front of the structure, and further underwater research could provide new information about Structure A (Miholjek 2008, 299). Underwater test probes under Structure A, which was being at the same time investigated on land by a team of the International Research Centre for Archaeology, Brijuni-Medulin in association with the Archaeological Museum of Istria in Pula and the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, yielded negative results in respect to the revelation of any kind of architecture. Nevertheless, a cultural strata 2 metres thick were found in four probes. They contained a large quantity of fragments of building material: tegulae, imbrices and mortar; fragments of marble paving: greywhite, red, yellow, black and green in colour; amphora

  This paper is dedicated to our late co-worker and friend Dr Mario Jurišić. 1

97

SOMA 2010 fragments and fragments of ceramic vessels, from coarse kitchen ware to fine thin-walled vessels. Among other things, a fragment of Corinthian ceramic in relief was found. This is a type bowl, pyxis-shaped, with a frieze in relief showing a chariot with a goat team and a figure standing to one side, which shows

metres. A grid of walls or several large or small rooms or structures can be seen within, the purpose of which cannot be ascertained with any certainty, but which must have been used by the operational quay, such as cisterns, pools, stores or granaries (Fig.1). The walls of an oval room measure12 x 5 metres in size. Almost square large room with two apses seen in the plan and alongside it a double square space suggest a religious structure or perhaps a space for public assembly. Between them are several spaces in a sequence, some of which have clearly reinforced walls, which might suggest the remains of cisterns or stores for various purposes. On the south west side of the structure there are the remains of a small landing, perhaps meant for smaller vessels (Miholjek 2008, 230).

that the theme is Dionysian in nature. This piece can be dated to the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd century (Jurišić 2006, 307). Test probes made in Structure C and the still visible jetty of the peninsula also provided negative results. In three underwater probes made, not a single antique find was found, which means that this structure could probably be connected with the nearby quarry that was used in a later period. This may be confirmed by the fact that only recent ceramic material was found in the probes and also due to the nature in which the jetty was built, with no preparation of the ground, the stone blocks being laid directly in the ooze and immediately on the sea bed (Jurišić 1996, 33).

It was ascertained that Structure F, excavated in 2000, 2007 and 2009, was the main operational quay for large vessels. Two test probes were dug alongside it; one at the very head, and the other on the western side of the quay. The purpose of the tests was to determine the manner in which this structure was built, the depth of the cultural stratum, and the repertoire of moveable archaeological material. The Roman period jetty 35 metres long was built at least three times; this was made visible by the actual sinking of the coastal zone, the rising of the sea level, and the influence of southern winds and waves. There had to be a certain depth alongside the quay to allow ships to dock. It was built of large solid stone blocks, while the interior was filled with smaller rubble and building material from earlier phases of the life of the antique complex. In some parts the remains of paving made of better worked stone slabs were preserved (Miholjek 2006, 296). In the two probes placed alongside the main jetty, a large quantity of archaeological material dated from the 1st to the 5th century AD was found. The finest were undoubtedly an almost complete amphora for wine of the horn-handled type, Aegean production, perhaps Cretan or Rhodian (Fig. 2), a Roman period lamp and a bone pendant in the shape of a phallus.

Testing alongside the blocks of the Roman period waterfront of Structure D reveals the existence of a cultural stratum. The material from these strata can be dated to the period between the 1st and the 5th centuries. A cistern was revealed in the coastal part of the structure; it is orientated differently from the structures in the sea. The lack of conformity between the orientations of the structures is related to the configuration of the shoreline, which the structures in the shore part almost always follow. Also observed here was the corner of a square structure carved in the solid rock of the shore, the footings for the walls and the channels of the drainage system. The remains of walls in the sea are not the foundations of buildings, but blocks placed in a sequence to strengthen the waterfront with a walking surface of fill, thus creating an operational quay. The investigations carried out in 1995 provided an answer to questions concerning the extent of the architecture under the sea, the thickness of the cultural stratum. On the basis of moveable architectural material answers related to the time in which this part of the complex existed (Jurišić 1996, 33).

The next structure seen on the shore was Structure G. Visible remains of walls on the land and on the very shoreline are discovered, while no remains can be seen in the sea. Thus far a geodetic survey was performed, while further investigations of the structure are still expected.

Excavations within the architectural complex Structure E were continued during 1997. The excavations and making of drawn records of the structure were made in 2007, and continued in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Footings of a whole series of buildings were discovered. The sewage system carved into the bedrock following its natural edge served structures now situated on the land. Walls of the same orientation as those in the sea can be seen on the land, along with the earth profile; they belong to the same architectural complex. On the coast part, in the tidal zone, these walls are interrupted, which is an effect of wave action. The external edge of the structure onto the sea was reinforced with large roughly carved blocks, creating the operational quay or waterfront that can be followed from Structure D. The constructed Roman-period waterfront stretches under the surface of the sea for a total length of about 50

Structure H was investigated and documented in 1997. It concerns remains of a complex of walls, a not very distant and interesting structure under the surface, originally thought to have been the remains of a road. After investigations in 2010 several elements were ascertained in support of the conclusion that it was a channel bringing water from the mainland used to supply whole complex with water. It is more than 118 m long, and about 3.5 metres wide (Miholjek 2008, 303). Research to date around the Vižula peninsula has given us an interesting picture of the way the place looked during antiquity and all the contents it might have had. For a clearer image of the whole land and underwater 98

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast part of the complex, it is necessary to carry out further investigations. For the moment it can be concluded that it was a large villa maritima, with continued existence for 500 years, that it had prestigious contents of considerable architectural achievements, alongside which, strung along the coast, were thermal and production complexes with a properly engineered quay and several landings. In future research it will certainly be necessary to place the emphasis on the unexplored part of Vižula, in order to link the research on the mainland with that in the sea in order to obtain a complete and clear image of the life of the villa in Roman times and Late Antiquity, when this complex, judging things all in all, took on the appearance of a rural settlement.

at once. The next month, a provisional protective grid was placed over the site, with the task of protecting the site until the following season. At the same time, the site was provisionally documented. Because the finds were scattered over a large area, the placing of a protective cage was ruled out. The actual salvage excavation started during May 2002. The peripheral part of the site (about 150 square metres) was investigated and moveable finds were raised. The central – smaller – part of the site, an area spreading across about 40 square meters, was still covered by a protective grid. Around fifteen more or less complete amphorae were raised, along with the second part of the quern, and a number of smaller finds.

2. Roman period shipwreck in the Čavlin shallows

The research went on in 2003, when the remaining part of the site was excavated. The find of the wooden structure of the ship and the appearance of small finds slowed down the work, so that this sector was not completely investigated. Along with the amphorae, three large iron anchors and two large lead braces of wooden-cum-leaden anchors were found at the site. Their position suggests that they were part of the cargo. The most interesting find was a bronze appliqué in a stylised duck figure, the closest analogy to which are the later figureheads (Jurišić 2004, 95).

In the Croatian part of the Adriatic there are several hundred ancient wrecks, from which most are devastated; and yet, a dozen or so have resisted the ravages of time and unscrupulous looters. They are preserved either in their entirety or only slightly damaged, which gives underwater archaeologists the opportunity to carry out a detailed research. The exceptionally large number of vessels that were wrecked in ancient times is not surprising, rather, it tells of the trade and the importance of navigation along the eastern side of the Adriatic, as well as of the perils lurking in the Adriatic Sea. Ancient wrecks can be dated either by kind of cargo or some other analyses (such as the age of the wood); the dating ranges from the 4th century BC all the way to the 6th century AD. The cargoes vary: from fine ceramic objects, bowls and plates, stone structural elements and bricks, to the most common of all, amphorae. The amphora was a form of packaging used from the time of Greek colonisation to Late Antiquity and the domination of Byzantium. There are remains of wrecks with a cargo of amphorae that can be explored and protected on the seabed with a protective iron cage; there are also some that – according to the documentation, should be raised and presented on dry land.

The end of the research was planned for the 2004 season. Extremely bad weather made the work too difficult, and no more than a few amphorae and small pieces of pottery were raised. In 2005 the remains of the wreck were investigated, and the research brought to an end. According to expectations new remains and wooden elements of the ship and a sector of the ship’s kitchen and appropriate ceramic inventory appeared. Around ten amphorae and a large number of potsherds were raised. The amphorae belong to the widespread type the northern Italic vinaria Lamboglia 2, presented in several versions, dated to the 1st century BC. Their volume is a little under 30 litres (Fig. 4). Six stamps were found, most probably Italic. There were fifty or so amphorae of this type at the site, 30 of them complete. Two of them have smaller capacities than the standard (the mini model). The number of retrieved tops is much smaller, which indicates that when the vessel sank the amphorae were empty. Two amphorae found in previous years are different. One is a North African amphora in the Punic tradition, Dressel 18 type, probably used for the transport of fish products, while one neck looks like a south Italic Brindisi amphora. Among the finds of the ship’s ceramic ware found in the last season, two later Hellenistic oil lamps of eastern origin, an Italian mortar of the same period and a service of Eastern Sigillata A consisting of a shallow and a deep plate and a calotte-shaped small bowl (Hayes form 3, 12, 5A). This is the earliest and most widespread red glazed eastern pottery, originally Syrian-Palestinian, dated to a period from the mid-2nd century BC to the last years of the 2nd century

The remains of a Roman period wreck with a cargo of La. 2 amphorae near shallow waters called Čavlin not far from the island of Murter have been known since 1998 after being reported by a German diver. At the moment the site was found, it was only very slightly disturbed. Because of other high priority research projects, it was not investigated at once, but placed under constant supervision. For three years the site was kept in secret, after which the research began in 2001. Systematic rescue excavations lasted for five years, and the site was completely documented and investigated in 2005 (Fig. 3). A report that devastation of the site had begun came at the end of 2001. During October 2001, an inspection carried out confirmed the report. An amphora that had been uncovered and prepared for raising, the lower part of a stone quern, and one lead crossbar of an Antique anchor of the so called moveable-model were found. These finds were, because of the imminent danger of looting, retrieved 99

SOMA 2010 AD, and was the dominant export ware on the market from about 100 BC to the time of Hadrian. These vessels are the most common forms in the 1st century BC. Further finds included several items of Eastern kitchen ware from the early phase of production. Two-part stone quern which was raised earlier also belonged to the equipment of the ship’s galley. The finds date the shipwreck to the second half of the 1st century BC (Jurišić 2005, 328). The remains of the wood structure of the vessel are not well preserved. Some pieces of the wood are dispersed over a wide area, but consistent remains stretch some ten metres in length. The remains of the keel and parts of 36 ribs have been found. The ribs are made of elm (Ulmus sp.). In any case, these are parts of the bottom of the ship, which means that after the sinking the ship sat on the sand with its bottom. The sides, bow and stern parts have rotted away in the course of time. The dimensions of the ribs suggest a smaller vessel, some 13 to 15 metres in length. The stern is at the north, as shown by finds of ceramic ware from that sector. The heavy cargo, the anchor, would have been placed on the bow, or perhaps slid there during the process of sinking. According to the position, the accident happened when the ship capsized due to windy conditions, previously thrust onto a shallow reef by the strong north wind. According to established practice, the wooden parts of the ship’s structure have not been raised. They have been covered with geotextile and a layer of sandbags, above which was placed a protective iron grid anchored in place using concrete blocks. The image suggests a ship that was carrying intermediate products. This shipwreck, in finds and dating, is very similar to the wreck that was investigated off the island of Šćedro in 1986 (Jurišić 2006, 329). 3. Shipwreck with sarcophagi near Sutivan on the island of Brač In November 2008, divers from the diving club ‘PIK Mornar’ of Split decided to check out an information obtained from local divers concerning an ancient wreck with a cargo of sarcophagi and other stone material lying to the west of Sutivan on the island of Brač. The information turned out to be correct and the very next year the Marine Archaeology Department started investigating and documenting the site. The site extends over a surface area of about 40 square metres at a depth of 32 metres. 20 stone objects arranged in two rows could be seen on the sandy bottom, the lower part being totally covered by sand (Fig. 5). Seven sarcophagi of simple workmanship without decorations were recognised among the objects, along with two lids made in the shape of a gabled roof with corner acroteria. The dimensions of the sarcophagi are 200 x 92 cm, and 72 cm high. The lid is of similar dimensions, 215 x 107 cm. Also found on the bottom were a round bowl made of stone with two semi-circular handles and a perforation at the bottom, nine stone blocks and one pillar of a circular cross-section (Miholjek-Mihajlović 2010, 6). According to the distribution of objects on the bottom, it can be assumed that the stone material on the

vessel was arranged in the same way. The breadth of the main concentration of finds, not including the stone bowl that rolled off during the sinking, comes to 4.10 metres, which tells us that the ship could have been a bit wider than 5 metres, hence the length of the ship should not have been more than 18 metres. A surface survey of the site and surrounding area revealed no objects possibly belonging to this wreck, either ceramic or wooden. Taking that into account, it can only be hypothesised that the remains of the wooden structure of the ship are still lying in the deeper layers of the sand, along with the remains of the vessels of the ship’s gallery, which might give a more precise dating of the shipwreck. Analyses of the stone bowl fragments show that it is made of alveoline - nummulite limestone, which can be found at numerous sites along the Adriatic coast and most of the islands, whereas on Brač it may be found around Sutivan, Splitska and Babin Loz bay.2 According to available data, this must have been a ship that carried intermediate products in the form of sarcophagi, stone bowls and parts of stone architecture from the quarry on Brač or other Adriatic quarries, to the inal client, in the time after the 3rd century AD, judging by the sarcophagus cargo. Several other shipwrecks containing stone cargo have been found on the eastern side of the Adriatic, apart from this wreck. A cargo of eastern Mediterranean origin ceramics and some ten stone blocks were found off Cape Izmetište on the Pakleni Islands near Hvar, one of them made of greenish granite with traces of working, the others made of limestone. The entire cargo is ascribed to the Aegean region and dated to the beginning of the 2nd century AD (Jurišić 2006, 181). 11 worked pillars of white marble and several semi-worked stone blocks were found off the island of Sušak (Cape Margarina), along with a cargo of tegulae and imbrices (Vrsalović 1974, 53, 240). The classic shape of tegulae and imbrices date the site to the 1st centuries AD (Jurišić 2000, 40). This is the greatest cargo of stone on the eastern Adriatic coast, weighing more than thirty tonnes. A wreck with a cargo of stone bowls was found in 1975 under the sea off the island of Veli Školj, on the eastern part of Mljet island. Along with five stone bowls with dimensions of 150 x 50 cm, there were several slabs, all highly encrusted and overgrown with flora and fauna. Around fifteen stone elements were noted. One neck of an amphora and several fragments of ceramic vessels were also found on that occasion. Report from 1975 describes three kinds of vessels: bowls of various sizes with conical lids and a handle at the top, a fragment of a small jug with a spout for pouring and an elongated rounded handle, and part of an egg-shaped small vessel. (Brusić, 1975). The first two kinds belong to Eastern kitchen ware.

  The analysis was done by the Mineralogical-Petrographic Institute of the Science and Mathematics Faculty in Zagreb. 2

100

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast The Department for Underwater Archaeology reviewed the site in 2009.3 Photographic records of the site were made on this occasion, along with records of three necks that belonged to small jugs with spouts and a longish round handle like the one found on an oinohoa. Further investigations will give more information about the wreck and the origin of the cargo and finally reveal if it is a shipwreck with a cargo of stone jars, sarcophagi or something else. Remains of a shipwreck that carried a cargo of sarcophagi were found in 1991 on the northern side of the island of Jakljan, between the islets of Crkvina and Tajan. Three caskets and three sarcophagus lids in the form of gable roofs with four acroteria at the corners were found at a depth of 37 metres. The lids in their dimensions correspond to the caskets and we can conclude that three sets are involved. The wreck can be dated to the 3rd century AD (Perkić 2009, 327). 4. Late Roman shipwreck in the Vela Dolina bay on the island of Mljet The Conservation Department in Dubrovnik received a report in spring 2005 from Miljenko Marukić of the MM SUB diving centre in Lumbarda on the island of Korcula, concerning a newly discovered ancient submarine site between the settlements of Sobra and Kozarica on the island of Mljet. During the first inspection in 2006, six whole amphorae and three iron anchors 80 to 100 cm long, lying one next to the other, as they probably were originally placed on board ship were observed lying on a sloping sandy bottom at a depth of 41 to 44 m , (Perkić 2009, 323). Other whole amphorae were situated in the sand below them, so it might be assumed that there are the entire wreck and the rest of the cargo below the surface of the sand and that the site was discovered in a totally intact condition. In October 2007 the Department for Underwater Archaeology of the Croatian Conservation Institute launched an underwater archaeological excavation of this site (Miholjek 2007, Report) (FIG. 7). The research unearthed the remains of a wreck with a cargo of two different types of amphora. The first are of Keay XXV/B type, dating to the 4th century AD and produced in northern Africa (novadays the territory of Tunisia), used for the transport of oil (oleariae) (PeacockWilliams 1986, 158). African amphorae are distinguished by long, narrow, cylindrical bodies, pointed feet, short handles of mainly rounded forms on a short neck below a simple funnel-shaped rim with a triangular edge. The amphorae are mainly from 110 to 115 cm long, with a maximum width of body in the shoulder area of about 27 to 30 cm (Keay, 1984, 83). The second type of amphora has smaller dimensions. On average it is 66 cm high, and has a maximum width of about 22 cm. It has pear-shaped body with a small pointed foot and an elongated neck, with handles that reach the amphora rim. The neck and the part of the belly below the shoulders are ribbed vertically (Fig.   Also taking part were Domagoj Perkić from the Inspection Affairs Office of the Ministry of Culture, with Miljenko Marukić, who found the site, and divers from the Dubrovnik Police. 3

8). This type has so far not been classified into any known typology of amphorae. Up to date, no similar specimens have been found on the seabed of the eastern Adriatic. Several specimens of these amphorae were found during research into the Agora in Athens in a stratum belonging to the 4th century.4 Research of this site was carried on during 2008 and 2009, when another iron anchor, somewhat smaller in size, was found close to the three anchors known from previous research. Twenty-one new amphorae were found, and the total number of amphorae recorded and drawn rose to 27. All amphorae were intact, with small amount of damage. Part of the wooden ship’s structure with bronze nails and several parts of the planking were found along with the ceramic material, as well as small sized lead plates with rivets that were used to line the wooden planking of the ship for protection against shipworms (Teredo navalis). This is one more shipwreck on Mljet5 proving that the Mljet channel was a common seaway on the commercial routes of the Adriatic in the early 4th century. The commerce of goods from the rich latifundia of northern Africa to the northern provinces of the Roman Empire had increased in that period. Dalmatia was then an important province of Late Antiquity, and the Adriatic had become an important maritime commerce route (Kisić 1988, 162-166). Since only the surface stratum of the find has been investigated and documented, there is a great probability that in the deeper strata of the sand there is an intact part of the ship and the cargo, it is important that the salvage excavations continue, so the whole site could be systematically investigated, protected and presented to the general public. 5. Shipwreck with Byzantine amphorae off the Stoba promontory on the island of Mljet An underwater archaeological site comprising a sunken merchant vessel with materials of eastern Mediterranean origin dated to the 11th century is situated off the village of Okuklje on the north east of Mljet island and off Ilijina Voda Bay, 500 metres east of Cape Stoba. It was discovered by local divers in the early sixties, when the removal of amphorae and other valuable material started. After a look into the private collection of J. Pedrini, rich in material from this site, the first expert inspection was made as part of the underwater archaeological reconnaissance of the south east shore of the island of Mljet in 1975, led by Dr J. Luetić, A. Kisić and Dr Z. Brusić (Brusić 1975). At that time, some twenty amphora fragments, parts of two pithoi, a small jug with a handle and a flat bowl were raised (Kisić 1988, 162). Several types of amphorae were distinguished, so Dr Brusić, basing his observations on the mainly fragmented amphorae retrieved from this site,   Information from Dr Andrew Opait.   On Cape Pusta in Sobra Bay in Mljet in 1975, a shipwreck with a cargo of Late Antiquity north African amphorae was found, together with globular, flat-bottomed amphorae from the early 4th century. 4 5

101

SOMA 2010 on whole specimens from the J. Pedrini collection and other known amphorae from the same period, divided the Byzantine amphorae into 5 groups (Brusić 1976, 37-49). Apart from the ceramic material, the site also yielded a large number of glass vessels and one specimen of a whole glass goblet. Since most of the material was found only in fragments, it was concluded that the site had been completely devastated and that no further investigations were required.

form of the bottom of the amphora is unknown. Two necks with handles and part of a belly were found, belonging to the Va group of Byzantine amphorae (BRUSIĆ 1976, 48). These amphorae are quite small in size, from 30 to 40 cm high and about 30 cm wide, with a pear-shaped body with a small rim and an unobtrusive neck, and very heavy ribmoulded handles of an oval cross-section, surmounting the opening of the amphora. Complete body of the amphora is horizontally ribbed.

Nevertheless, because of the extremely rare and interesting finds, the Department for Underwater Archaeology led by I. Miholjek decided to check out the condition of this site once again in November 2009, almost 35 years after the first survey. The objective was to document the existing condition of the site and check if it was still possible to find objects on the bottom in order to supplement the typology of Byzantine material from the 9th to the 11th centuries, which is extremely rare in our region.

The Department for Underwater Archaeology continued to conduct the investigations in June 2010, primarily because of the find of a whole amphora, with its original stopper of wood covered with resin that lay beneath a deep stratum of sand, probably in its original position. At that time a totally unexpected state of the site came into view. At a depth of 21 metres, a 2-metre long iron anchor was spotted on the edge between the rock bottom and a sandy plateau. An oval ceramic jug with two handles and a funnel shaped rim was found in the surface layer; instead of having a standing surface on the bottom, it had a standing flat surface on one side of the belly. Two complete amphorae of smaller size, belonging to the Byzantine amphorae Group IV, after Z. Brusić, were found in the vicinity. One was 30 and the other 32 cm long, while both had a diameter of 17 cm at the widest point. Below two small oval handles, which fitted into a totally straight and unobtrusive rim, in the upper third the body was very much widened, and also horizontally ribbed, while in the lower part it gradually narrowed and passed into the elongated oval bottom.

On that occasion it was established that the site stretched in the north-south direction over the area of about 100 square metres. No parts of the ship’s structure were observed, but remains of the cargo of the ship in the form of ceramics, amphorae, pithoi and glass vessels appeared at a depth of from 6 to 25 m scattered over the stone slope, encrusted in fissures in the rocks. The major concentration of fragments lay at a depth between 18 and 20 metres. It was possible to observe sporadic amphora fragments below the rocky slope from 23 to 25 metres in depth on a sandy plateau with scanty seaweed. In this very spot an entirely whole amphora was found, mainly buried in the sand, closed with a convex wood resin-covered stopper (Zmaić 1009, 13). The amphora has a funnel shaped, moulded rim, a short neck that gently expands toward the bottom, and wide handles of an oval section that start below the rim and extend to a point between the neck and the body. The body is pear-shaped, a bit wider in the upper part, narrowing gently to the bottom. The body is ribbed vertically through the whole length of the amphora, although the ribs are more obvious in the upper part. The ending of the amphora is concave, so the bottom is stable. It is 40 cm wide, and the greatest width is 30 cm (Fig. 9). In the shoulder area, in the middle between the two handles, is a monogram incised before firing. Dr Brusić placed this amphora into Byzantine amphorae group I (Brusić 1976, 38). Several fragmented amphorae were found, one of which was missing the lower part of the belly. According to the neck and handles, it could be classified in Byzantine amphorae Group II (Brusić 1976, 40). According to dimensions and form these amphorae are very similar to Group I. The main difference is in the upper part. The rim is funnel shaped, but it is not moulded, and turns into a short neck that spreads out downwards. The handles of oval section start immediately below the rim and extend to the place where the neck transits into the body of the amphora. In the upper part the body is wider and gradually attenuates towards the bottom, totally horizontally ribbed. The greatest width is 28 cm, but because of the absence of the lower part, the height and

Three archaeological test probes sized 2 x 2 metres were made in the sand plateau in front and below the iron anchor. Two amphorae lying next to each other were found (Fig. 10) in probe 1, at a depth of 24 metres, beneath a 20 cm thick layer of sand. One belonged to Group I and the other to Group II after Brusić, but in form they are very similar, and probably the same kind of cargo was carried in both. The bodies of both amphorae were broad and pear-shaped, with a surface to stand on and a slightly concave bottom. The difference can be seen on the rim and in the graffito placed on both amphorae in the shoulder area. The Group I amphorae have a graffito on which a ligature composed of AM can be recognised, while on Group II amphorae, the ligature is composed of XM. Five amphorae of the same type were found in probe 2 and 3, at a depth of 24 metres, below a twenty or so centimetre thick layer of sand. In probe 2, four amphorae were laying one next to the other, probably in the same way in which they were stacked in the hull. An amphora of the same type was found in probe 3, two metres from the group of amphorae, in the same position and orientated in the same way, which suggests there might still exist more identical amphorae in the lower stratum of probe 2 and 3. The amphorae are 57 cm tall, have a funnel-shaped rim, a short neck reaching the shoulder were the amphora is at its widest, 24 cm, after which it gradually narrows into a cone shape. The handles reach from below the rim to the shoulder. Below the shoulder, the body is horizontally 102

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast ribbed. One of these amphorae has a graffito in the area of the neck with a stamp in the form of two concentric circles. According to the Z. Brusić typology, these amphorae belong to Group III (Brusić 1976, 40). The basis for dating the five amphorae groups from this site, according to Brusić, are similar amphorae found in Istanbul, embedded as a building material into buildings of the Mangala area constructed during the time of Emperor Basil I (867-886). A large number of these types have also been found in many sites in Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Chersonesos/Kherson, dated by coins of Basil I and Basil II, which would place them in the 9th and 10th centuries. In the Agora in Athens they were found in Satum IX, dated to the 11th century (Kisić 1988, 162). In addition to amphorae and ceramic vessels, several fragments of glass vessels were found at the site. The fragments belong to plates on an annular foot and plates of transparent light green-yellow glass in the lower part and cobalt blue in the top part. There is a motif of an eye imprinted hot in several rows on the walls of the vessel. Fragments of the necks of glass bottles mainly green in colour with appliquéd horizontal blue ribs, undulating filaments or with expansions of coloured glass and a fragment of richly decorated candlestick of multi-coloured glass with undulating applications were also found. The upper part of a goblet identical to that which was found intact in 1975 was discovered among other finds. Decoration in two-colour glass is fairly rare; it is known in Egypt, Armenia and some sites in the Caucuses in the 9th and 10th century. The eye motif is specific to the Islamic world and along the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire in Syria, Egypt, Tunis, Mesopotamia and Armenia, whence Byzantine 9th and 10th century glass blowers took over this manner of working and decorating glass. Since the amphorae are of the Byzantine type, then the glass objects too were probably procured in Byzantium from some of the glass workshops of Syria or Egypt (Kisić 1988, 162). Since wrecks of this period are extremely rare along the Adriatic,6 this shipwreck is the most important site from that period, with a rich repertoire of archaeological material, varying from several types of amphorae and other ceramic ware to objects made of glass. At that time the Croatian dukes were dominant on the Adriatic, and the trade of Byzantium became very insecure because of the frequent attacks by Croatian ships on merchantmen. Therefore, land trade routes were preferred almost to the exclusion of sea routes. The Department for Underwater Archaeology will continue the systematic investigation of this valuable site in order to acquire new knowledge related to the trade and seafaring of Byzantium in the 9th and 10th centuries.

  In 2006 the Department for Underwater Archaeology discovered a wreck laden with amphorae of the 9th/10th century off the islet of Meraro, south of Rogoznica. 6

6. Post-mediaeval shipwreck of the 17th century in the Mijoka shallows off the island of Murter The submarine archaeology site by the Mijoka shallows was put on the map in 2001, although local divers had known of it for many years, which led to considerable devastation of the site. Soon after this, Dr M. Jurišić led an expert inspection of the site. It was determined that there were remains of a sunken ship that had carried a rich commercial freight, probably loaded in Venice and intended for ports around the Adriatic and eastern Mediterranean, since the first finds showed a similarity with material from a sunken ship off the islet of Gnalić (Petricioli, 1970). The richness of the cargo and the typology of the material indicate a merchantman of the early 17th century. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the main trade route between western trade centres like Venice and the ports of the eastern Mediterranean went along the eastern Adriatic. The great Ottoman Empire became a large and rewarding market and because of the openness of Turkish trade policy and the privileges that foreign traders enjoyed during the 16th century, there were increasing numbers of Venetian merchantmen who were sailing along the Adriatic Sea with goods deriving from the whole of Europe. The navigation routes stuck to the eastern coast of the Adriatic with its many safe ports and havens that were used mainly for the sake of protection against bad weather at sea, but also because of the many vicissitudes at the level of wars, politics and economics. This kind of situation was caused by the successive Turkish-Venetian conflicts aimed at gaining supremacy over the Adriatic ports as well as by conflicts with the Uskoks of Senj, who constantly upset both Venetian and Ottoman trade by sea. The Mijoka ship was sailing along the usual route from Venice to the east, and whether it was hit by bad weather or an attack from the enemy or pirates can only for the moment be conjectured (Zmaić 2009, 430). Underwater investigations of this site were carried out in four campaigns from 2006 to 2010, and showed that, as a result of many years of devastation, the ship’s structure was totally destroyed and all visible material had been looted (Fig. 11). Nevertheless, there was still a stratum with very valuable archaeological material on the bottom. Since only very small movable finds had been preserved, the research methodology required placing bags on the ends of water dredges with which the excavation was carried out, in order to collect all the sand from the bottom. The bags filled with sand were transferred to the land and sieved. The material that appeared indicated the remains of a sunken ship with a commercial cargo mainly deriving from Nuremberg and the glass workshops of Murano. Because of depredations and of devastation of the site which lasted for numerous years, the remains of the original packaging were found only in traces, and material without any particular order was scattered over the sandy bottom over an area of about 100 square metres. The commercial freight consisted of raw materials and intermediate products as well as goods

103

SOMA 2010 meant for practical and consumer use, decorative goods and goldsmith’s materials. Since no coin was found at the site during the first campaign, nor were any written sources concerning the wreck discovered, the dating of the shipwreck could be set only on the basis of the inscriptions of the workshops and craftsmen on individual items such as jettons, or reckoning counters, forged in Nuremberg and small sundials of the same origin (Zmaić 2009. 431). During the 16th century Nuremberg was the main European centre for the production of reckoning counters used in calculations and accounting. In the mid-16th century the craftsmen started placing their names on the counters they made. From most of the brass counters found, according to the signature, can be concluded that they were made in the workshop of Hans Schultes of Nuremberg. Two basic types with the diameter of 22 cm are distinguished, with an identical depiction in the central field of the obverse – a six-pointed coat of arms consisting of three semicircles and three points of a star within which was an orb and cross. Type 1 has the name of the craftsman and the principal place of business of the workshop on a strip on the outside: HANS · SCHVLTES · IN · NORNBERG and on the reverse in the central field is a bust of Mercury and a caption on the external inscription field: GLVCK · KVMBT VON · GOT ALEI (Luck comes from God alone). Type two has the caption on the obverse in the outer strip HANS · SCHVITES · ZV · NVRENBERG, and on the reverse: in a central field a depiction with three crowns and three lilies alternately placed around a central rosette while on the external inscription field there is the caption: GLICK · KVMPT VON · GOT · IST· WAR (Luck comes from God, it is true). According to information from written references (Gebert 1917, 80) the making of these counters can be ascribed to Hans Schultes II, who was at work from 1586 to 1603, or Hans Schultes III, from 16081612. Although it is impossible to say which Schultes is the right one, we can certainly place the wreck at the beginning of the 17th century. This is borne out by several folding sundials of ivory with an incised inscription of the master craftsman. These sundials were made from the 15th to the 17th century, and were characteristic Nuremberg products and trade goods; they were invented in the city. They were used as travelling clocks, and were made of precious metals, bronze, brass, ivory or wood, composed of two plates of equal sizes, rectangular, circular, oval or heart-shaped in form, joined by a hinge. In the lower plate, a compass was inserted, to enable determination of the north-south direction. Between the plates there was a polos, a thread, of cotton or silk, serving as a gnomon or indicator (Syndram 1989, 77). Several rectangular sundials of ivory, sized 50 x 30 mm were found, most of them missing either the top or the bottom flap. In the centre was a circular groove for a compass with the cardinal points indicated. Traces of the polos or cotton thread were also preserved. The maker’s signature was incised at the bottom of the lower flap of

two specimens. On the first, ...ANS MILE... is visible, and on the second HANS.. ER. The historical sources mention a Hans Müller, Miller or Miler, member of the guild of compass makers, also a clockmaker for the small folding dials from Nuremberg, who became a citizen in 1601 and died in 1620. He incised rosettes or stars over his name as his trademark (GOUK, 1). These signs above the signature are also found on sundial specimens from Mijoka. Takin into account the mentioned information, the dating of the trading goods cannot be established earlier than the beginning of the 17th century. Folding sundials in brass boxes with gilding, two of circular shape, 35 mm in diameter, one of oval shape, 30 x 38 mm, and two cordiform specimens sized 35 x 38 mm were also found. Sundials of ivory with finely incised markings, a housing for the compass and traces of the polos were found inside the brass boxes. The box would be richly decorated with incised and gilt motifs. In two cases a motif of a heart shot through with two arrows inside a circular wreath was found on the lid of a round and a heart-shaped specimen. One specimen had the inscription on the bottom of its round box (which served as instructions for use at the same time) COMPASSVS · PROPE FERRVM · NON · RECTE · ASSIGNARE · POTEST – which means that a compass close to iron will not show the right bearing. Every dial had a lug by the hinge through which a little chain could be drawn. So far no dial in the metal boxes has the signature of craftsman or workshop, but because of the rosette incised on the cordiform clock, which is the trademark of the Hans Miler workshop, it is possible that his workshop could have accounted for all of them (Zmaić 2009, 433). A silver coin which does not enter this timeframe was found at the site during the campaign of 2008. The coin is much older than the rest of the finds, which means it was obviously hoarded and that one must not always rely to finds like these when dating a site. These are two types of Polish half-grosz. Ten specimens have the signature on the obverse: MONETA:REGIS:POLONIE (coin of the kingdom of Poland), while in the central field there is the depiction of a crown. On the reverse in the inscription field is the signature ALEXANDER:DEI:G[RATIA]:REX (Alexander, king by the grace of god), while in the central field is a depiction of an eagle with spread wings and a crown on its head. This coin is dated to 1501 to 1506 and is a century older than the latest dated objects at the site. The second type has an identical depiction in the central field, but on the obverse it has the inscription CIVITAS SVIGN:1526, and on the reverse ...LVODVICVS... (Zmaić, 2008) In the most recent campaign (the one from 2010) several silver Hungarian denarii were found, but because of the incrustations, it will be possible to decide which series it belongs to only after restoration. Several Polish half-groszy are bonded with Turkish akçes, which will provide new guidelines after they are cleaned. The most recent investigation found a gold Hungarian forint with the figure of the Virgin and Baby Jesus in her lap 104

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast (Patrona Hungariae) on the obverse and the inscription: PATRONA:VNGARIAE. The central field of the reverse holds the figure of a king placed full face, in armour, crowned, holding an orb with a cross in his left hand, and a halberd in his right hand. To the left and right in the field is the year 1587, and in the inscription field: TRA II SIGI·B·D·S MONE (Zmaić, 2010) (Fig. 12). In addition to these datable finds a large part of the ship’s cargo consisted of goods meant for practical and consumer use, decorative material and goldsmith material. Several different kinds of cutlery could be distinguished. By far the most common was cutlery with wooden handle and triangular head packed in a tripartite set with six dimensions. In all cases the blades of the knives had corroded away, but in some cases their shape was extant. The 2008 investigations showed that the cutlery was transported in wooden crates, iron bound, 60 x 40 cm, and 30 cm high. The metal handles of more luxurious cutlery was fond, decorate with diamond shapes in relief and a crown in the form of a rosette on the head. Knives with a several-part handle of bone decorated with a turned decoration in the shape of a rosette were found accompanied by the remains of leather sheaths (Zmaić 2009, 436). Razors had long narrow wooden handles made of two parts, between which the steel blade was inserted. The blade was retained by a brass part, which was preserved, unlike the blade, which had corroded away. The blades of knives, razors and other cutlery were in all cases corroded, while the brass fittings from the head was preserved along with the handles where the state of preservation depended on the material they were made of. The ship was also carrying in its cargo a large number of glass objects of various purposes, probably deriving from the glass workshops in Murano. Beads of various forms and sizes made out of glass or glass paste were found scattered in great numbers over the sandy bottom. The bigger beads were made in the form of calyxes, oval or round or cut in the shape of a polyhedron, while the smaller bead were of a very simple annular or cylindrical shape of blue, white, green and black, violet or red in colour. Several multicolour large beads were made in the Murano technique and smaller oval beads of transparent glass with the characteristic longitudinally inserted white filaments, or vetro a reticello. As for glass vessels, only two fragments of a small bottle with thin walls of transparent glass, pear-shaped with a very short foot and a low placed belly that gradually narrowed into a very narrow neck and ended with a small straight edge were found. Identical bottles were found at the Gnalić site with other glass material, which, considering the excellent quality, was ascribed to Murano glass workshops. It is possible that a bottle of this shape might be one of the two glass parts of an hourglass (Lazar, Willmott 2006, 103), but it is not ruled out that fluids, oils, expensive fragrances or medicine were kept in these phials. Small round pieces of glass, 3.5-4 cm,

used for eyeglasses were also found.7 A large number of smaller and larger square pieces of glass that were used as frame-less mirrors were found. Mirrors were an important item of Murano production and were exported in large quantities. An amalgam of tin was used for fabricating the mirrors. Mercury would be poured over the thin tin plate, this would be covered with a sheet of paper, and the pane of glass placed over it. When the paper was withdrawn the mercury came into contact with the glass and left a reflecting layer of amalgam on the surface (Kelez 1970, 42). The amalgam layer remained on several specimens in mere traces for the tin had corroded away in the course of time and the mercury between the glass panes had almost totally drained away and was mostly found on the sea bed in cracks between the rocks. In the 17th century mercury was also used in pharmaceutical preparations, and also for the extraction of gold by the amalgamation of auriferous ore or sand (Kelez 1970, 42). Metal objects found at the site could be divided into several groups: parts of candlesticks, small objects of practical or everyday use, goldsmithing and decorative materials. Parts of brass candlesticks were found in a very small number, because they had been alienated from the site, with respect to their size. The other found parts were of similar moulded forms, without any surplus additions (Stadler 2006, 109). Because the candlesticks were identical to those found from the Gnalić site, their origin can be sought in the workshops of northern Europe, particularly in Nuremberg and Lübeck (Petricioli 1970, 33), where the production of such candlesticks flourished during the 16th and 17th centuries. As for small everyday use items found, there was a large number of metal weather or fishing bells of the same form as those found at the Gnalić site, packed in oval wooden boxes (Schich 2006, 111). In these cases the oval wooden boxes were found only in pieces, and the bells were lying on the bed mixed up with other material. They were all made of thin brass plate of circular form in several dimensions, in diameters of 16 and 24 mm, made of two hemispheres with an annual lug at the top and an elongated hollow in the lower part. At the join of the two hemispheres were two horizontal grooves on the upper and lower sides. Very interesting finds are also small padlocks with a combination mechanism. Like the combination locks of today, they consist of several movable circular rings with signs, letters or numbers, which when arranged into an appropriate combination release a small rod, and the padlock is opened. Made of brass, in small dimensions, 20 x 33 mm, they consisted of seven circular rings, two of which were linked with bolts for locking. One of the padlocks was opened after the input of the combination ERSE.   Among the finds of the Gnalić wreck was a package of spectacles with leather frames (lederbriller) (Božulić 2006, 18). The round lenses for these glasses were of the same dimensions as the lenses found at the site of Mijoka. 7

105

SOMA 2010 Other metals for consumer and everyday use are brass pins with a small spherical head packed together in bundles of twenty. Appliqués in the form of a rosette were also packed so that one lies inside another in tens. Considering the nail hole in the middle, they might have been in use for furniture upholstering. Snuffers found were identical to those found at the Gnalić site. Several kinds of metal boxes of various shapes and sizes were found: circular and semi-circular, brass and often richly decorated with pressed or incised decorations or with handles in the form of small lion heads. Small boxes oval in shape made of tin and cast in perforated form like lace with rich tendril motifs had the inscription LBGG in the middle of the oval lid in a square frame (Zmaić 2009, 438). Among the goldsmith materials carried on board the most common were small precision scales with a set of weights in oval boxes of brass plating with a decoration in the form of rosettes and radial motifs. In the centre of the oval lid was a stamp with initials of the artisan or the workshop, the letters P and L, between which is the stylised head of a bird facing left. Only the brass plates for the weighing of the raw materials are extant; one has a flat and the other a round bottom, with three little holes for the cords they were suspended from. A large number of small brass weights were found, from simple ones in the shape of thin square brass plate, marked only with impressed circles or dots to those of greater weight in the shape of prism, cube or circles. Assay marks were impressed on the prism and cube weights, representing the marking of the weight or a coat of arms. The marks were impressed in lead, and represented a crown, an orb and cross, a ruler with a cross in one and an orb in another hand, or a coat of arms. Weights with identical assay marks were also found at the Gnalić site in a wooden box within an ironbound chest with textile items and a set of weights of a somewhat different type.8 (Božulić 2006, 18) Also comprising goldsmithing material were ceramic moulds for embossing and impressing in the form of rosettes, berries or of a drop-shaped form with and without nipples, which probably served to fabricate jewellery. Ready-made embossed rosettes of brass plate were also found, similar in shape to the mould. The cargo also contained goldsmithing intermediate products in the form of small silver granules for the granulation of jewellery. A large quantity of crystallised nodules of iron pyrite, iron disulphide, FeS2, were also found, often known as fool’s gold for its golden yellow colour. Sometimes real gold can be found in the pyrites, though in smaller quantities, and this kind of gold-bearing pyrite is a very rare ore. Pyrite, because of its colour, is often used in the making of cheap jewellery that imitates gold. Of ready-made goldsmithing products, only brass rings with a square crown in which there was a nugget of turquoise paste or some semiprecious stone was set were found. Several of them were   A set of weights consisted of nine items in the form of small bowls, which fitted one inside another, the biggest having a lid that can be closed and a small handle for transporting (Božulić 2006, 18). 8

found together, arranged in a sequence of one on top of the other, probably packed like that for transport. One should also mention small two-sided horn combs, often shown in the pictures of the Renaissance masters as an essential part of women’s beautification equipment. The tines are closer together on one side, apart on the other. They were found in two dimensions, either 50x45 or a larger version, 90x50 mm. Large numbers of coral beads were found, finely shaped and polished in various dimensions. This is not a complete inventory of the material from the Mijoka site, for a large number of the finds is very fragmented and hard to identify, while other items, having spent a long time in the water, have corroded and turned into an amorphous mass, or have become bound together with limestone deposits and other material, and will be recognisable only after thorough cleaning and conservation. Irrespective of both the mentioned issues and the great devastation, the results of the investigation at the Mijoka site and the great amount of material found have greatly contributed to the image of life and material culture in the 17th century. They have also given an insight into the way things were produced in the late Renaissance workshops of European production and commercial centres, the reciprocal links between these centres throughout Europe and the connections with eastern trading centres, where the Adriatic Sea had an important and indispensable role. 7. Investigating a 16th-century shipwreck at the site of Pličina Sv. Pavao, Mljet The seabed off the island of Mljet is now richer for one more valuable archaeological site. This concerns the remains of a merchant ship from the 16th century that in unlucky circumstances ended its voyage at the bottom of the sea in the Mljet archipelago. The find is an extremely valuable and unique one in a sense that it is the only site discovered in a perfectly intact state, which is nowadays a great rarity. The significance of the site inheres in the fact that archaeologists now have, after many a long year, the chance to explore a totally preserved modern shipwreck. Pličina Sv. Pavao (St Paul’s Shallows) lies on the southern side of the island of Mljet and is several hundred metres off the shore. The shallows are completely open to the winds and waves from the south. Somewhat to the west of the shallows is the islet called Preč, and the point or cape Dugi rat with its beach, which makes a natural haven and anchorage on the way along the southern side of the island from the area of the Mljet lakes to Saplunara Bay. The shallows rise just a few centimetres above the surface of the sea and are difficult to see, and in bad weather present as a very dangerous trap on the way towards a safe refuge (Miholjek 2009, 273). The site was discovered by the Medveščak-Sava Diving Club; during a diving camp on Mljet in 2006, at a depth of

106

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast 40 to 46 metres, on a rocky part of the sea bed, divers came upon six bronze cannons, around which were scattered fragments of ceramic ware, glass and metal items. The existing situation suggested a new and intact archaeological site, which was at once reported to the appropriate institutions. Not long after the discovery came an expert investigation by the Inspection Affairs Department of the Ministry of Culture, of the Port Authority of Dubrovnik and the Croatian Conservation Institute’s Department for Underwater Archaeology. Photographic records of the site were made on that occasion, and several objects were raised for the sake of expert appraisal. It was determined that these were remains of a merchant ship of the 16th century that was carrying a rich commercial cargo on the route between the eastern Mediterranean trade ports and Venice. For the sake of defending against enemies at sea, the ship was furnished with several bronze artillery pieces. In the very next year, 2007, the Department for Underwater Archaeology, with many associates from outside, started underwater archaeological investigations at this site (Fig. 13). The investigations have been carried out in four campaigns to date, the most recent having ended in May 2010. The objective of the investigation of the first campaign was to draw up the whole of the drawn and photographic records of the site as found. Because of the great value of the bronze artillery pieces and the other preserved objects, it was decided that all the objects that had been documented would be raised, in order to prevent possible devastation. On this occasion, seven bronze artillery pieces and some thirty items were raised. Six of the artillery pieces recovered belongs to the group called perrier, breech-loading, with one muzzle-loading esmeril. Two almost identical perriers were of large calibre, and the others were all of smaller calibres. All the perriers were manufactured from a combination of two metals. The barrel was of cast bronze, and the breech chamber of iron. Alas the six breech chambers found were severely corroded and incrusted in the sea bed, and hence were not raised to the surface. The ammunition used was stone shot, found in large quantities at the site. Most of the stone balls correspond to the calibre of the two large cannon, which were richly decorated in Renaissance-style reliefs. Just one of the seven cannon found was a muzzle-loader, in which, during restoration, an iron ball was found. The barrel had a polygonal cross-section, without relief decorations or markings to enable identification of its origin and year of production (Mihajlović 2009, 269-270). Several metal objects were found, particular importance attaching to a large pail decorated with bands of decorative rivets, to parts of a candlestick and a pewter jug. Close to the pail was a large engraved ceramic bowl, decorated with a depiction of a mandolin player in an enclosed flower garden with a wickerwork fence, two trees and three flowers with a particular symbolic meaning. Such bowls in the 16th

and 17th centuries had pictures alluding to the virtues; given on the occasion of engagements or weddings, they constituted highly luxurious goods. Most of the material found at the site was of ceramic ware. Some of the ceramic objects were produced in the Venetian workshops of the 16th century, while the other group belonged to oriental, highly luxurious and richly decorated ceramics or perhaps oriental kitchenware in simpler forms. The luxury ware, according to quality of workmanship and rich polychrome decoration, can be ascribed to the ceramic workshops of the Turkish city of Iznik. The creation of the unique style of decoration of these products was much influenced by the tradition of making luxury silver vessels, as well as by the production of Chinese porcelain, particular from the Yuan (1260-1368) and Ming (1368-1644) dynasties, as is visible in the mass of similar forms and motifs done in cobalt blue on a white ground. They are characterised by decoration done in cobalt blue or ultramarine on a white ground, with the frequent employment of black, green and red. In several cases the edges of plates are undulating, and the painted motifs are most often stylised waves and foam of the sea, as well as lotus flowers and lilies as well as other flowers in bloom, leaves and vines (Pešić 2009, 343). Because of the great value of this material and the intact state of the site, the investigation was continued in 2008 and 2009. The material that emerged was related to that from 2007, and among the many objects, one more artillery piece was discovered, raised together with an iron breech and an iron swivel; the artillery piece would have been mounted on the rail with this swivel. Before conservation and cleaning, the artillery piece that in the raised incrusted part had a partially preserved breech chamber and, of course, the last cannon found were X-rayed in order to clearly see and study the breech mechanism, and ultimately to be able to make a theoretical reconstruction of the cannon. As for newly discovered items, of particular interest are seven large luxury Iznik plates fitted one on top of another, and several bowls packed for transportation, confirming the hypothesis that the ship contained oriental commercial cargo meant for the western market. In addition, other outstanding finds are a two-sided comb of horn, a lead musket bullet that shows the ship was armed not only with cannon but also with muskets or arquebuses, and nine small silver coins. These were silver Turkish akçes that were struck in the mints of the Ottoman Empire from the 15th to the end of the 17th century. Further analysis of this coinage, after cleansing, will give us additional guidelines to go on in the ABSOLUTE dating of the sinking of this ship (Zmaić 2009). Within all the open documentation quadrants, after the surface layer of sand had been removed, the wooden structure of the ship appeared, with the corroded parts of iron. Since the site was found in an untouched condition, while the underwater works were being carried out, a special effort was made to keep the structure of the ship untouched, 107

SOMA 2010 preserved in the condition in which it was found. Special attention was devoted to recording the architecture of the ship, in order to be able to obtain an image of the actual ship that was as complete as possible. For this purpose, in May 2010, an international collaborative team was set up, including marine archaeology divers from Italy, led by Professor Carlo Beltrame (Dipartamento di Science dell’ Antichita e del Vicino Oriente, Universita ca’ Foscari) of Venice. Their purpose in being involved in this campaign was to assemble complete drawn and photographic records of the wooden structure of the ship. This collaborative venture will continue in campaigns to come, until the architecture of the ship is entirely documented. The material that emerged in the 2010 campaign is related to that found in previous campaigns. Several complete luxury plates were found, together with teapots and bowls made in Iznik, and a large number of fragments of vessels of the same source, northern Italian ceramics, a large number of fragments of glass bottles, and copper vessels. One of the more interesting objects found is a small bronze ship’s bell with the year M D LX VII (1567) in relief (Fig. 14). As well as ten silver Turkish coins, akçes, found in 2009, in the last campaign two silver talleri were found, bonded together with several tens of akçes. The akçes are for the moment unrecognisable, but the talleri, according to the depiction and the caption on the obverse can be ascribed to an issue of 1559 during the reign of Elector of Saxony Johann Friedrich I, or his sons. On the visible obverse there is a bust of the elector, Johann Friedrich I, in armour, with sceptre in hand, and on the external inscription field runs the legend: MO:NO-FRATR-V(-)M:DVC(V)-:SAXO(N) with a coat of arms at all four sides. Other material found included a number of pine cones (pineus pinea), animal bones and some cutlery. A stone quern and several stone cannon balls were found, including one of a diameter of 16 cm, which means that there must have been an artillery piece of this calibre on board, although so far 8 cannon of smaller calibre have been found. Although modern wrecks are no rarity in the seabed off Croatia, they are seldom found in such an intact state, and still less often can we talk of systematically investigated modern wrecks. The investigations carried out from 2007 to 2010 are just the initial part of systematic salvage excavations, which with the common drawn, photographic and video records of the site and the finds, will be used in an attempt to obtain as wide as possible a view of the circumstances of this shipwreck, and provide knowledge about the production, economic conditions, commercial navigation routes and the dangers of sailing in the turbulent 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. 8. B24 Liberator wreck off the island of Vis During the second phase of reconnaissance and investigation, the objective was to look for the plate with the serial number in the shattered cockpit, which was

almost impossible because of the thick deposits of shells and marine growth. Nevertheless, after photographs came from America with the precise location of the plate, the investigation could be continued. And so on May 31, 2010, the second investigation was organised, carried out as organised by the Coordination for the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Republic of Croatia at Sea, collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and the Croatian Conservation Institute, and the Split Harbourmaster’s Office, which put its ship Pojišan at the disposal of the research crew. In spite of a strong sirocco and high waves, the campaign was a success, because the divers searched through the cockpit and found the plate with the serial number. The research crew had earlier determined certain indications based on the condition of the wreck that it could be a really special find – the last produced Liberator in the Douglas works in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which got the nickname Tulsamerican. To our great satisfaction, it soon turned out that our clues were correct – when the plate was cleaned, it turned out that it was indeed the Tulsamerican that had been found, a B-24 J, serial number 42-51430, which was famed even during its lifetime and covered in the media all the way to its last mission. The Tulsamerican was part of 765 Squadron of the 461st Bombardment Group, and flew on its last mission on December 17, 1944. On its hull, in a large black square, the number 24 was written in white, and on the nose below the cockpit it had a colourful emblem and the inscription Tulsamerican. This plane was the last one produced in the Douglas factory in Tulsa, OK. It was paid for with war bonds bought by factory workers and citizens. As a sign of gratitude, after the plane left the assembly line, all the external surfaces were thickly covered with the signatures of the factory workers. A circular emblem in the shape of a globe was drawn on its nose below the cockpit a, on which was a Red Indian with a knife in one hand and an American flag in the other Below the emblem the name of the plane was written – Tulsamerican, which was invented by one of the factory workers in a competition. Thus embellished, the brand new Liberator flew half across the globe and after a number of stopovers finished its journey in Italy at the Torretta field. On December 17, 1944, Allied heavy bombers from the base in southern Italy took off to bomb the city of Odertal close to the Polish-German frontier. On the way to Odertal, the formation was attacked by Germany Messerschmitt 109 and FW 190 fighters. In the first wave, they managed to down several of the bombers. They damaged one engine of the Tulsamerican, which the pilot had to shut down. Because of the damage, the plane began to trail behind the formation and before it had dropped its bombs, the German fighters harried it again. One hit damaged the hydraulic system. Before they had reached the Croatian coast, it was clear that they would have to land on Vis, which was a little further south than the course to Italy. Close to Vis they found out that because of the damage they could not deploy the undercarriage, and since there were several other planes on the approach, the flight controllers would 108

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast not let them make a belly landing. The heavy bomber would have blocked the strip. Having arrived in the Vis airport space, the bomber began to circle over the open sea south of Vis, in the area foreseen for abandoning a plane and landing in the sea. While the undercarriage was being released, the engines suddenly stopped, and the pilot decided on the only possible course of action – landing on the surface of the sea. The impact was so great that the force of the water crushed the front and lower part of the fuselage with the bomb doors, and tore off the tail. When the crushed fuselage disappeared under the surface in a few moments, seven aviators were left swimming in the icy sea. Pilot Ford, navigator Landry and engineer Priest, who had not managed to get out in time, vanished with the Tulsamerican into the depths. The survivors were saved by a British boat and dropped off in Vis. After some time they took off for their base. Some were lightly wounded and sent to the USA for treatment and recuperation, while the others went on with their combat missions. However, the story of the celebrated Liberator and its crew was soon lost among the hundreds of similar dramas of World War II. In the reconnaissance and investigation of the wreck of the Tulsamerican, we saw once again how useful is the cooperation between divers who discover a wreck and the Ministry of Culture or the CCI, charged with its protection. Only by respecting the legal procedure and the obligation to report every find, of ancient shipwrecks or the wrecks of ships and planes from the World Wars can we protect and preserve the cultural heritage of the seabed off Croatia. The incredible coincidence of the recent finding of the wreck of the Tulsamerican opens up new vistas in the investigation of more recent Croatian military history. The wreck of the plane is in a protected area where diving is permitted only through authorised diving centres, and the depth of 41 metres is still within the borders of sporting diving, and is thus accessible to most diving categories. At the moment no diving is allowed around the wreck of the Liberator, but after the making of a complete record and the establishment of legal protection, there is no doubt that the wreck of the Tulsamerican will enrich the supply of diving locations in the sea area of the island of Vis.

Bibliography Božulić 2006: G. Božulić, Brodolom kod Gnalića, Biograd n/m, 2006. Brusić 1975: Z. Brusić, Podmorska arheološka rekognosciranja jugoistočne obale otoka Mljeta, arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 1975. – unpublished. Brusić 1976: Z. Brusić, Byzantine amphorae (9th to 12th century) from eastern Adriatic underwater sites, Archaeaologia Iugoslavica, XVII, Beograd, 1976, 3749.

Brusić 1987: Z. Brusić, Dio tereta lađe iz 17. st. potonule kod otoka Bisaga u Kornatskom arhipelagu. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 26, 473-490. Brusić 1996: Z. Brusić, Pomorska arheološka istraživanja kod otočića Gnalića na ulazu u Pašmanski kanal (nastavak istraživanja 1996.) (neobjavljeni izvještaj istraživanja, Arhiv Zavičajnog muzeja, Biograd na moru) Davis 1987: L. Davis, B-24 Liberator in action, Squadron/ Signal Publications;1987 Dorn 2000: R. F. Dorn, B-24 Liberator Units of the Fifteenth Air Force;Osprey, Publishing; 2000 Guštin, Gelichi 2006: M. Guštin, S. Gelichi, The shipwreck at Gnalić, The heritage of the Serenissima, The presentation of the arhitectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, Koper, 2006, 91-92. Hocquet 2007: J.-C. Hocqet, Venezia e il mondo turco, Venezia e l’Islam 828-1797, katalog izložbe, Venezia 2007, 29-49. Jurišić 1996: M. Jurišić, Hidroarheološka djelatnost Državne uprave za zaštitu kulturne i prirodne baštine u godini 1995., Obavijesti 1. XXVIII/96, HAD, Zagreb, 1996. Jurišić 1998: M. Jurišić, Hidroarheološka djelatnost Uprave za zaštitu kulturne baštine tijekom godine 1996. i 1997., Obavijesti br.1. XXX/98, HAD, Zagreb 1998 Jurišić 2000: M. Jurišić, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic, Maritime transport during the first and second centuries AD, BAR Internationaleries 828, Oxford 2000. Jurišić 2004: M. Jurišić, Antički brodolom kod hridi Čavlin, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva XXXVI/2 , Zagreb 2004, 95-103 Jurišić 2006: M. Jurišić, Podmorska arheološka istraživanja na Vižuli – pokretni nalazi, Histria Antiqua, 14. Pula 2006, 303 – 313 Jurišić 2006: M. Jurišić, Čavlin, Murter, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 2/2005, Zagreb, 2006, 328-329 Keay 1984: S. J. Keay, Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean, A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence, Part i, BAR International Series 196 (i), Oxford, 1984. Kelez 1970:, I. Kelez, O sirovinama, Brod kod Gnalića. Naše najbogatije hidroarheološko nalazište. Vrulje 1, Zadar 1970, 40-46. Kinzey 2000: B. Kinzey, B-24 Liberator in detail; Squadron/Signal Publications, 2000 Kisić 1979: A. Kisić, Ostaci potonulog trgovačkog broda iz XVI. stoljeća kod Šipana. Anali zavoda za povijesne znanosti JAZU u Dubrovniku 17, 73-98. Kisić 1982: A. Kisić, Nešto o trgovačkom brodu koji je nastradao u Koločepskom kanalu kod Dubrovnika krajem XVII. ili početkom XVIII. st. Anali zavoda za povijesne znanosti JAZU u Dubrovniku 19-20, 143164. Kisić 1988: A. Kisić, Rezultati podmorskih rekognosciranja i istraživanja na dubrovačkom području, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društrva, 12/87., Zagreb 1988.

109

SOMA 2010 Kojić, Barbalić 1975: B. Kojić, R. Barbalić, Ilustrirana povijest Jadranskog pomorstva, Zagreb 1975, 80-87. Lazar, Willmott 2006: I. Lazar, H. Willmott, The late 16th century glass from the Gnalić wreck, An overview of forms, The heritage of the Serenissima, The presentation of the arhitectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, Koper, 2006. 99-104. Mihajlović 2009: I. Mihajlović, Preliminartna analiza topova 2 i 6 s novovjekovnog brodoloma kod pličine sv. Pavao kod Mljeta, Jurišićev zbornik, Zagreb. Miholjek 2006: I. Miholjek, Podmorsko arheološko istraživanje ostataka arhitekture poluotoka Vižule kod Medulina, Histria Antiqua, 14, Pula, 2006, 293 – 301 Miholjek 2007: I. Miholjek, Vižula – podmorje, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, 4/2007, Zagreb, 2007, 322-324 Miholjek 2008: I. Miholjek, Underwater archaeological research at the Vižula peninsula near Medulin, Terre di mare – Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Trieste 8-10 novembre 2007, Universita degli Studi di Trieste/Pomorski muzej “Sergej Mašera” Piran, Trieste/Piran, 2008, 299-304 Miholjek 2008: I. Miholjek, Poluotok Vižula kod Medulina – podmorje, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, 5/2008, Zagreb, 2008, - u tisku Miholjek 2008: I. Miholjek, Izvješće o podmorskom arheološkom istraživanju – Antički brodolom u uvali Vela Dolina i rekognosciranju podmorja otoka Mljeta i poluotoka Pelješca od 10 – 25 svibnja 2008. arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Miholjek 2009: I. Miholjek, Novovjekovni brodolom kod pličine sv. Pavao okraj otoka mljeta, Jurišićev zbornik, Zagreb. Miholjek 2009: I. Miholjek, Izvješće – Rekognosciranje podmorja poluotoka Istre, arhiva Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009, 7-10 Miholjek 2009: I. Miholjek, Izvješće o arheološkom rekognosciranju i stručnom uviđaju brodoloma sa sarkofazima kod Sutivana na otoku braču od 27. siječnja do 1. veljače 2009., arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Miholjek 2010: I. Miholjek, Izvješće - Podmorska arheološka istraživanja poluotoka Vižule u 2010. g., arhiva Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2010 Orlić, Jurišić 1993: M. Orlić, M. Jurišić, Antički brodolom kod otoka Šćedra, Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 17/1991, Zagreb 1993: 149-178. Orlić 1995: M. Orlić, Podmorsko arheološko istraživanje dijela arheološkog kompleksa Vižula kod Medulina, Histria Antiqua 1/1995, Pula, 1995 Pavić 2002: M. Pavić, Plovidbene rute srednjim i južnim Jadranom u Izolaru Giuseppea Rosaccia, Radovi zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru sv. 45/2003. 153-199. Peacock, Williams 1986: D. P. S. Peacock, D.F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman economy, an introductory gidre, London, New York

Perkić 2009: D. Perkić, Novi podmorski arheološki lokaliteti na širem dubrovačkom području, Jurišićev zbornik, Zagreb 2009, 319-337. Pešić 2009: M. Pešić, Keramički materijal iz Iznika i ostalih orijentalnih radionica s lokaliteta pličina sv. Pavao pored otoka Mljeta, Jurišićev zbornik, Zagreb 2009, 338-349. Petricioli 1970: S. Petricioli, Brod kod Gnalića. Naše najbogatije hidroarheološko nalazište, Vrulje 1, Zadar 1970. Petricioli 1974: S. Petricioli, Kulturno – historijsko značenje hidroarheološkog nalaza kod Gnalića, Zbornik Zadarsko otočje, 1, Zadar, 71-78. Robinson 1959: H. S. Robinson, The Athenian Agora, Results of excavations conducted he American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey 1959. Schechner 2001: S. Schechmer, The material culture of Astronomy in daily life: Sundials, Science and Social change, JHA, xxxii, Harvard University 2001, 190222. Schick 2006: M. Schich, The sleigh bell finds from Gnalić wreck, The heritage of the Serenissima, The presentation of the arhitectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, Koper 2006, 99-104. Spitzer 1942: D. C. Spitzer, Roman relief bowls from Corinth, Hesperia 11, Journal of the American school of classical studies at Athens, Atena, 1942. Stadler 2006: H. Stadler, The bross candlesticks, sconces and chandeliers from Gnalić wreck, The heritage of the Serenissima, The presentation of the arhitectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, Koper 2006, 107-109. Syndram 1989: D. Syndram, Wissenschaftliche Instrumente und Sonnenuhren, Kunstgewerbesammlung der Stadt Bielefeld / Stiftung Huelsmann, D.W.Callwey München 1989. USAF 1944 – 1945: Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model B-24G, H, J, L and M; 30 November 1944, Revised 25. March 1945 USAF 1944: Pilot Training Manual B 24 Liberator, 1944. USAF 1944: Erection and Maintenance Instruction for Army Models B-24D, G, H and J; 25. October 1944 USAF 1942: Handbook of Operation and Flight Instruction for the Models B-24C and B-24D, Bombardment Airplanes; March 7, 1942 Zmaić 2008: V. Zmaić, Izvješće o arheološkim podmorskim istraživanjima lokaliteta sv. Pavao i Gonoturska u podmorju o. Mljeta, Lirice na Pelješcu i rekognosciranja podmorja o. Lastova od 22.09.2008.07.10.2008., arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Zmaić 2008: V. Zaić, Murter – Mijoka: Izvješće o zaštitnom podorskom arheološkom istraživanju od 02 – 14. lipnja 2008. Ahiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Zmaić 2009: V. Zmaić, Izvješće o podmorskom zaštitnom istraživanju novovjekovnog brodoloma na lokaliteta pličina sv. Pavao kod otoka mljet od 05. do 10. svibnja

110

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast 2009., Ahiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Zmaić 2009: V. Zmaić, Ostaci tereta potonulog trgovačkog broda s početka 17. st.na lokalitetu mijoka kod murtera, Jurišićev zbornik, Zagreb 2009, 430-442. Zmaić 2009: V. Zmaić, Izvješće o podmorskom arheološkom rekognosciranju dubrovačkog podmorja

od 14. do 21 prosinca 2009.g., arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished. Zmaić 2010: V. Zmaić, Izvještaj o podvodnom arheološkom rekognosciranju šibenskog podmorja od 14 – 28 lipnja 2010., Arhiv Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, Zagreb, 2009. – unpublished.

Figure 1. Vižula site near Medulin, structures E and F

Figure 2. Vižula near Medulin

111

SOMA 2010

Figure 3. Čavlin wreck plan (near the island of Murter)

112

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast

Figure 5. Sutivan wreck (near the island of Brač)

Figure 4. Lamboglia 2 amphorae, Čavlin wreck (near the island of Murter)

Figure 6. Documentation of Sutivan wreck

Figure 7. Vela Dolina wreck (on the island of Mljet)

113

SOMA 2010

Figure 9. Byzantium amphorae 9th - 10th century, Stoba promontory wreck (on the island of Mljet)

Figure 8. Unclassified type of amphorae, Vela Dolina wreck

Figure 11. Post-medieval shipwreck in the Mijoka shallows (near the island of Murter)

Figure 10. Documentation of Stoba promontory wreck (on the island of Mljet)

Figure 12. Golden coin from post-medieval shipwreck in the Mijoka shallows (near the island of Murter)

114

Igor Miholjek and Vesna Zmaić: Recent underwater archaeological research off the Croatian coast

Figure 13. Post-medieval shipwreck in the Sv. Pavao shallows (near the island of Mljet)

Figure 14. Ship’s bell on the sea bottom, post-medieval shipwreck in the Sv. Pavao shallows

Figure 15. B-24 J Liberator ‘Tulsamerican’ near the island of Vis

Figure 16. B-24 J Liberator ‘Tulsamerican’ near the island of Vis

115

116

Economy of the sacred in rural Anatolia: incomes, properties, transactions Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat

There were at least three main types of indigenous sanctuaries in the Anatolian world, which were also mentioned by Strabo among others: (1) temple-states, (2) urban sanctuaries or those which belonged to the great cities, and (3) rural sanctuaries or those which belonged to the small provincial boroughs, mainly in Phrygia and Lydia. Even if they managed to formally maintain the previous privileges bestowed by the Achaemenian and Hellenistic sovereigns, the real fact, perceivable not only in western Asia Minor,1 but also on the central-eastern side of Anatolia, was that their effective authority gradually diminished by subjecting them to the urban centres in the first case and to some client kings in the other.2 (Text 1) Some of these temples were given certain privileges, like the right of asylum ‒ this was the case at the sanctuary of Anaïtis, Hierokaisareia, Artemis Pergaia, and the goddess Mâ from Pontic Comana3 ‒ or they received the right to issue their own coinage to give to the numerous pilgrims they received, again such as at the Mâ sanctuary, Pontic Comana.4 In some instances, it was the city that the sanctuary was subordinated to that issued coinage with the image of the temple or the divinity.5 Had the sanctuary been subordinated to another city, it would have been the latter that had to mint coins and bear the effigy of the deity or of the sacred place, as was the case at the sanctuary of Mên, Kabeira, which was subordinated in the 3rd century to Neokaisareia.6 In other situations at rural sanctuaries there were more dedicants belonging to the neighbouring city rather than to the administrative city the sanctuary was associated with. This was the case at the sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos, southern Phrygia, which was closer to the minor borough of Motella than to Hierapolis.7 To a larger or a smaller extent, all these types of sanctuaries had properties similar to other cult centres in Oriental or properly Greek areas:8 arable land, forests and sacred

  Dignas, 2003, 79.   Götter, 2001, 305-306. 3   Rigsby, 1996, 438-441 (Hierakome-Hierokaisareia); 449-452 (Perge); 459 (Pontic Comana). 4   Amandry, Rémy, 1999, 20. 5   Hierapolis: coins with the image of Apollo Lairbenos; Hierokaisareia and Hypaipa representing Anaitidei; Perge for Artemis Pergaia etc. 6   Lane Fox, 1997, 556. 7   Ritti, 2003, 89. 8   Bruit Zaidman, Schmitt Pantel, 2002, 41-51; Pedley, 2005, 39-56. 1 2

groves9, sacred trees10, waste and grazing lands, gardens11 or vineyards that provided considerable income.12 (Text 2) The wealthier sanctuaries could have entire villages of their own as they provided a considerable labour force.13 In some other instances, significant benefits were furnished by the sacred slaves or hierodouloi consecrated to the deity, who often prostituted themselves for the benefit of the temple. Such an example is that of the sacred slaves in the service of Anaïtis at Zela who offered their bodies during the annual celebrations of Sakaia. There were also sacred slaves consecrated to the Goddess Mâ at the Pontic Komana, who had a similar functional role during the seasonal feasts. Thus, besides the substantial incomes supplied in this way at least during the seasonal celebrations, numerous pilgrims were attracted to these temples. As Robin Lane Fox noticed when writing about the Pontic Komana: ‘Few cities could supply such a combination of commerce and religious veneration, of processions, sex, and women...’14 It is perhaps not surprising that the only assertion we could identify in the Hittite texts relating to the existence of the sacred slaves is the supplication of Arnwanda and his wife Ašmunikal addressed to the Sun-Goddess of Arinna, a goddess who equates to Mâ at Cappadocian Komana.15 (Text 3) The Romans generally applied the same principles regarding the great Microasian sanctuaries as they used for the provincial administrative organization in the region: they modified the territorial boundaries and the degree of influence according to their own interests, without taking much into account, but to a limited degree the previous situation or the ethnic limits. The main aim of   For similar cases of sacred groves and lakes: the grove and the village of Astyra, near Adramytteion, dedicated to Artemis Astyrene (Strabo, Geography, XIII, 1, 51; the temple of Artemis was place within this grove: XIII, 1, 65); the grove belonging to the temple of Apollo of Didyma, which stretched both inside and outside the sacred precinct of the sanctuary; the cypress grove from Ortygia (Strabo, Geography, XIV, 1, 20); probably there was also another grove at the mouth of the Cayster, where a series of lakes consecrated to Artemis occurred (Strabo, Geography, XIV, 1, 26); the sacred grove of Apollo Clarios at Colophon (Strabo, Geography, XIV, 1, 27); the coppice near the sanctuary dedicated to Plouto near Nysa in Caria (Strabon, Geografia, XIV, 1, 44); the sacred groves of Leto at Glaukos and Physkos in Caria, near the Rhodian Peraia (Strabo, Geography, XIV, 2, 2-3); the grove of Zeus from the city of Arsinoe in Cyprus (Strabo, Geography, XIV, 6, 3). 10   Lane Fox, 1997, 47-48; MacMullen, 1987, 66-69; Rostad, 2007, 119. 11   Ricl, 2003b, 105. 12   Strabo, Geography, XII, 3, 36. 13   Lane Fox, 1997, 556. 14   Lane Fox, 1997, 555-557. 15   Singer, 2002, 40-42, No. 5; Laroche, CTH, 65-66, no. 375; KUB, XVII, 21 and the duplicates KUB, XXXI, 124 (+) XXXI, 72 and KUB, XXIII, 115 + XXIII, 17 + XXXI 117. 9

117

SOMA 2010 these alterations was to prevent any mutiny from the local populations and to eliminate all the centres of resistance, thus pragmatically hinting at the efficient ways to gradually integrate these territories and to provide their loyalty to the Roman state. A first way to accomplish this task was to dissociate from the previous administrative, political, and religious structures or to transform them to become suitable for Roman interests. Accordingly, the great sanctuaries were entrusted with larger territories and were given more adherents into their care, while administratively they were under the subordination of parties obedient to the Roman Empire. Therefore their autonomy was more and more restrained. The example of the Pontic temples is significant in this respect. Initially structures with a wide autonomy, they became effective instruments of domination and integration as well as a means of ensuring loyalty towards the Roman state. The second way of integration was to change the governing powers these structures had and replace them with specific individuals loyal to the Romans. Therefore, the intention was to modify the manner of legitimizing power. The case of Strabo’s relative, Dorylaios, is illustrative here: he betrayed his king and friend to the Romans at a time when all was not yet lost and was subsequentlyfirst replaced as high-priest of Mâ at Komana by Archelaos, a trusted friend Pompeius, and then by Lykomedes, and finally by Dyeutos during Strabo’s lifetime.16 Thus, on one hand loyalty to the Roman state was ensured by imposing weak rulers subjected to Rome. On the other hand, a constant provisional situation was maintained because the Romans appointed rulers with no relationships or ties to the local community, and as a consequence were easy to replace, their administrative and/or religious structure being reorganized thereafter without any further resistance. Therefore, directly or indirectly, the temple-states became part of the Roman client-state mechanism. In a direct way, through the formal and temporary recognition of an autonomy in relation to other types of political, administrative, and religious structures. Various divergent opinions have been offered regarding the ways the characteristics of the sacred economy of the temples should be defined and how their autonomy with regard to Greek cities was established, especially in relation to those sanctuaries which depended upon them.17 There is a letter from the end of the 2nd century written to the provincial governor by the temple-warden of the sanctuary of Mên Askaenos, Sardis. In it we learn that the governor of the province was requested to mediate a conflict between the officials of the city and the priests of the sanctuary which depended on it.18 (Inscription 1)

  Strabo, Geography, XII, 3, 33-35.   Dignas, 2002, 13-15. 18   Ricl, 2003a, 99-100; Dignas, 2002, 139-141; ETAM, 23, 131. 16 17

It was a common occurrence during the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods for the Roman rulers to mediate conflicts between the cities and the sanctuaries regarding the annual revenues the temples should receive.19 The neokoros of the temple, Hermogenes, son of Demetrios, drew attention to the fact that the civic institutions were obliged to pay an annual sum of 600 denari for the maintenance of the sanctuary, for the daily ceremonies, and for the celebration of the mysteries. The incumbency was well established considering that, as the text of the inscription mentions, the privileges had been bestowed by the ‘kings’ ‒ i.e. by the Hellenistic or, more likely, the Achaemenian sovereigns ‒ and only confirmed by the Roman rulers. As for the location, the sanctuary of Sardis mentioned here could be the same as the one referred to on another epigraph related to the distribution of the water sources within the city. Other religious institutions mentioned in the latter epigraph were the Sanctuary of Zeus, the Jewish synagogue and the mystery association related to the cult of Attis.20 (Inscription 2) In other cases, such as the Pisidian Antioch and Perge, sanctuaries dedicated to Mên Askaenos21 and Artemidei Pergaia,22 these were considered urban sites, even if they were placed within the territory of the city and in neighbouring areas. The sanctuaries could own properties, including sacred lands, arable or wine/growing areas, the latter bringing in significant profits. Strabo alluded to the important revenues of the great Anatolian sanctuaries, especially at Pontic Komana, Venasa and Zela, where the priests had an opulent lifestyle.23 Not only were they able to use these assets in a discretionary manner, but they also   See also the edict of AD 44 of the proconsul Paullus Fabius Persicus to Ephesus regarding the financial obligations of the city towards the sanctuary of Artemis. IGSK, 11.1, Ia, 17-19. Dignas, 2002, 141-156. 20   Sardis, VII.1, 17; Perdrizet, 1896, 70-71. For other evidences from Sardis, see Robert, NIS, I, 32-33. 21   The sanctuary was situated on the hill of Karakuyu near Yalvaç. It was not a temple-state as Ulrich Götter stated in his article Tempel und Grossmacht: Olba/Diokaisareia un das Imperium Romanum (1999, 305), but an urban sanctuary, even in the Hellenistic period. Mitchell, Waelkens, 1998, 37-90; Robert, 1987, 355-359; Debord, 1982, 151; Levick, 1967, 73. 22   Strabo, Geography, XIV, 4, 2: ‘Then one comes to the Cestrus River; and, sailing sixty stadia up this river, one comes to Pergê, a city; and near Pergê, on a lofty site, to the temple of Artemis Pergaea, where a general festival is celebrated every year’. Most researchers indicate the possible location of this sanctuary on the hill of Eyilik Belen, a kilometre south of the city, in an important wine-producing area, although the site has not been archeologically confirmed. See the comment in IGSK, 54.I, 66 and MacKay, 1990, 2066; Robert, Hellenica, V, 1948, 64-69; Onurkan, 19691970, 296-297. It is likely that it was neither situated several miles away from the city as Dignas considers (2002, 11) relying on Strabo, nor was it a rural sanctuary as Rigsby supposes (1996, 450), but one that belonged to the city, the cult being maintained by Perge. On the other hand, apart from this sanctuary of the neighbouring territory, another urban temple dedicated to Artemis Pergaia should have existed as seems to be indicated by field research, as well as by the distinctive representations of these two temples on the coinage of the city. We can therefore explain the differences between the two types of representations, one picturing a tetrastyle temple with Ionic capitals, and the other a temple with Corinthian capitals. See also Onurkan, 1969-1970, 296-297 and MacKay, 1990, 2066-2068, who noticed this difference but could not explain it. 23   Strabo, Geography, XII, 3, 36; XII, 2, 5; XII, 3, 37. 19

118

Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat: Economy of the Sacred in Rural Anatolia possessed important manpower resources made up mostly of ‘sacred functionaries’ (hieroi) – who were technically free according to Roman law but still bound to the temple24 – and ‘sacred slaves’ (hierodouloi). However, they could not be sold. Their number was quite impressive: 3,000 at Venasa and 6,000 at the Cappadocian Komana. A great deal of the lower-order staff used to perform agricultural activities, but they could also raise funds from other sources as well: (1) they would either prostitute themselves for the benefit of the temple in the cult of Anaïtis or Mâ, (2) or they would perform in public as divinely inspired (theophoretoi), making prophecies about the future while in a trance, (3) or else they would wander from place to place in Anatolia or throughout the Roman Empire begging money for their deity ‒ i.e. mendicant priests serving the Anatolian or North-Syrian Mother-Goddesses Cybele, Artemis Ephesia, Artemis Pergaia, the Syrian goddess etc.). Other sums of money were provided by selling the hand-made goods manufactured in the leather or weaving workshops belonging to the sanctuaries.25 Situations are known where certain lands were donated by the worshippers for an established purpose, i.e. annual festivities they wished to initiate, or for them to be exploited for the benefit of the temple. Several examples of annual festivities are worth mentioning. In the times of the Flavians, members of the Elders Council from Perge formally recorded the donations made by a certain member of the local aristocracy, Marcus Feridius, consisting of farmlands situated both near the city of Aronda and next to the sanctuary of Artemis Pergaia. These donations were for the initiation, after his death, of a festival that probably corresponded to his birthday. The crops raised on these fields had a double purpose: to finance future festivities and to feed the participants at the feast.26 (Inscription 3) A similar example is given by the ceremonies that Stasias, son of Mouas initiated at the beginning of the Antonine rule. He left to his mother, ‘while being in perfect sanity’, the right to use during her lifetime the properties from Baris, together with other important economic resources of the area, including olive groves. The revenues obtained from these lands were to be used, according to the inscription, after her death ‘as an offering to Apollo and for the wine and bread to be bought for the performances of the festivals in my (name) every year in the third day of the ninth month, so that the properly-fed villagers should bear in (their) minds this day, me, my brother, Kotes, son of Stasias, and my mother Kille, the daughter of Mouas.’27 (Inscription 4)

There was a further clause stipulating that the properties should not be alienated or used for any other purposes, and a provision that a fine should be paid by anyone guilty of disrespecting the donor’s wishes. It is likely that the names of this local Apollo the offerings were dedicated to, Apollo Lyrbotos, and that of Apollo Lairbenos/Lyrbenos from southern Phrygia and northern Pisidia were related because of their proximity. The fact that the fine would be paid to the temple of Artemis Pergaia suggests that the security of the money was a high priority because it was granted special protection and the right of asylum. The other sanctuary dedicated to the local god Apollo Lyrbotos would have been less significant and therefore liable to robbery (these were quite frequent). It cannot be excluded that the two deities, Apollo Lyrbotos and Artemis Pergaia, had a common cult locally, which might have corresponded to the area occupied by the cult of Artemis Pergaia in the Roman period28 and with similar religious habits recorded in the region.29 A third example in this series of donations is represented by the Amorion inscription related to the cult of Mithra. The text records the ‘festivities of the vineyards’ honouring the deceased, Kyrilla, daughter of Gaius Antipatros, that used to take place, together with processions, ‘in the ordinary days of the mithrakanas’, and organized by a community of ‘initiates from the tribe of Zeus. (Inscription 5) It is not clearly stated whether the vineyards were donated to a sanctuary devoted to Mithra. What we know is that the initiates (mystai) gathered in order to harvest the grapes and profit from the right to use the vineyards, as well as to celebrate the festivities at the monument dedicated to Kyrilla. On the other hand, even the identity of the god is difficult to establish: there are elements that indicate mystery (Graeco-Roman) practices, but the initiates gathered with their families to pay close attention to initiation and other rites during the ceremonies that clearly had an Iranian name and origin (mithrakana). The result is a form of worship to a Mithra deity with a Graeco-Iranian appearance, and worshipped by an association of Zeus initiates, the latter god being ultimately identified with Ahura Mazda.30 These initiation ceremonies and ritual purifications represented sources of income from taxes, which increased the revenues of the priests and temples.31 Other fees were collected in the sanctuaries of the healing gods, either when the dedicants sheltered in guest accommodation waiting for their ‘cures,32 or when they consulted the oracles.33 In some remote rural areas of eastern Lydia and southern Phrygia there were also taxes levied on individuals and/or their relatives to be released   MacKay, 1990, 2066-2069.   See Petzl, 1994, 122, No. 120 (with bibliography) = Miller, 1985, 64 = Ramsay, 1895, 149, No. 41 = Ramsay, 1889, 217, No. 1 = Herrmann, Varinlioğlu, 1984, 1-18. 30   Boyce, III, 1991, 259-261. 31   Dignas, 2002, 257-258. 32   CMRDM, I, 28 and CMRDM, I, 34. 33   Ricl, 2003a, 99. 28 29

  Ricl, 2003a, 88-89; Dignas, 2003, 83-84.   Ricl, 2003a. 96. For the trading of leather coming from the animals sacrificed to the gods, Petzl, 1994, no. 64 and the comments of Ricl, 2003a, 99, n. 142. 26   IGSK, 45. I, 66. 27   IGSK, 54. I, 77. 24 25

119

SOMA 2010 from oaths of a local priest of Anaïtis or Mên. Such instances are normally found in the so-called ‘confession inscriptions’.34

proseuchē;43 metrōon;44 sanctuaries);45 public buildings (the nymphaion dedicated to Septimius Severus and Artemis Pergaia);46 doors.47

A whole range of lands and goods came to be the property of the sanctuary by means of (more or less willing) donations from the members of the rural communities. This happened because the gods commanded and the individuals had unconditionally to obey the divine will. One of the confession inscriptions testifies that Apollonios, son of Apollonios had to give up his own wine from Pagasi because he did not allow Aphphia to do a similar deed for the benefit of the Mên Axiottenos sanctuary, and also because he had been asked by the deity to dedicate at his own expense statues of Mên Tiamou and Anaïtis and he delayed doing this.35 (Inscription 6)

(2) Cult objects: votive lamps;48 sacred scrolls;49(?)

Significant expenses had to be permanently provided either from their own revenues or from the donations of dedicants for the construction and renovation of sanctuary buildings, for the accomplishment of daily rituals and for the great festivals. Unlike other areas of the Greek world, such as Athens or Delos, where inventories of sacred treasuries are known, these testimonies are sporadic and do not refer primarily to our period but are earlier (e.g. Didyma, Troy, Mylasa, Halikarnassos, Samos, Rhodos, Rhodian Peraia, Pergaia). Thus, the best way of identifying their content is by analyzing the votive inscriptions. The only available data regarding objects donated mainly to Anatolian sanctuaries that were dedicated to the solar and lunar gods refer to: (1) religious and secular buildings: porches;36 votive altars,37 incense altars;38 votive columns;39 columns with propylaia;40 cult buildings (spelaeum,41 mithraeum;42

In the treasuries of the temples a great deal of money was undisputedly collected as taxes and fines. The most numerous examples in this respect come from the sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos and from the inscriptions containing oaths against grave desecrators: the amounts of fines to be paid by offenders were between 1,500 and 2,500 denari.60

  Petzl, 1994, No. 58.   Petzl, 1994, No. 71 = Malay, Petzl, 1985, 69-63, No. 4 = SEG, 35, 1164. 36   CMRDM, I, 28: a porch for the hierodouloi, a dwelling and an auxiliary building; Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2003, 8, No. D5 = Miller, 1985, 53 = Robert, 1962, 129 = Ramsay, 1895, 146, No. 34 = Ramsay, 1883, 382383, No. 5 to Hypsistos; Mitchell, 1999, 140, nr. 192 = TAM, IV.1, 81 to Theos Hypsistos; Mitchell, 1999, 139, No. 175 = IGSK, 17, VII.1, 3303 to Theos Hypsistos; Mitchell, 1999, 142, No. 225 = MAMA, X, 488 to Theos epekoos; CIMRM, I, 22 = TMMM, II, 4, p. 91 = Cumont, 1939, 70 = Wüst, RE, 30, 1932, col. 2151 = Robert, 1937, 305 concerning the feasts of mithrakana; IGSK, 56, 9 = AMS, 53, 18 = Clauss, 1992, 238 = CIMRM, II, 27bis (suppl.) = AE, 1954, 7 = SEG, 12, 1955, 515 mentioning a priest of Zeus Helios aneiketos Mithra; Ricl, 1991, 23, No. 96 (Pl. 15, fig. 96) = LIMC, V.1, 543, No. 12; MAMA, VII, 132 (cu pl. 8) to Hosioi kai Dikaioi; Ricl, 1991, 40-41, No. 88 to Hosios Dikeos; Ricl, 1991, 43, nr. 95 to Hosios and Dikaios; ETAM, 23, 131 related to Mên Askenos. 37   Mitchell, 1999, 138, No. 169 = Mitchell, 1993, II, 44 = TAM, V.2, 1400. 38   Mitchell, 1999, 142, nr. 230 = Mitchell, II, 1993, 49 = Bean, 1959, 70, No. 122. 39   Mitchell, 1999, 142, nr. 230 = Mitchell, II, 1993, 49 = Bean, 1959, 70, No. 122 addressed to Theos Hypsistos and IGSK, 54.I, 239 to Artemis Pergaia. 40   Mitchell, 1999, 142, No. 215 = Drew-Bear, Naour, ANRW, II, 18.3, 2041-2043, No. 35 (Pl. XIV, 35 a and 35 b) = SEG, 40, 1990, 1251 dedicated to Theos Hypsistos. 41   TMMM, I, 362 and II, 55c = Will, 1955, 155 = Cumont, 1939, 71-72 (and n. 5) = Cumont, II, 1906, 367-369. 42   IGSK, 54, 248 (with Pl. LVI). 34 35

(3) Small statues, busts, images of the deities: Victory statues from the main sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos;50 statues of Mithra;51 statue of Mên;52 statues of Mên Tiamou and Anaïtis;53 the image of Anaïtis.54 (4) Stone stelai.55 (5) Representations of (healed or otherwise) parts of the body, etc.: ears,56 eyes, breasts,57 torsos,58 legs,59 sexual organs.

  Mitchell, 1999, 141, No. 202 = SEG, 31, 1981, 1080 = Sheppard, 19801981, 94, No. 11 (Pl. 2, Fig. 11) belonging to Theos Hypsistos. 44   Diakonoff, 1979, 151, No. 31 (fig. 34) = Petzl, 1994, No. 75 of Anaeitis. 45   ETAM, 23, 131 (with fig. 136) and Sardis, VII.1, 17 = Perdrizet, 1896, 70-71 (fig. 12) of Mên; Petzl, 1994, 122, No. 110 = Brixhe, 1987, 24 = Miller, 1985, 62 = MAMA, IV, 283 (Pl. 59, with photo) = Ramsay, 1895, 152, No. 50 = Ramsay, 1889, 222-223, No. 8 = Hogarth, 1887, 387, No. 16 and Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2000, 22, No. K6 = Miller, 1985, 57 = MAMA, IV, 276 C (Pl. 57). 46   IGSK, 54. I, 196 (Pl. XLIX). 47   Ricl, 1991, 40-41, nr. 88 (Hosios Dikeos). 48   Milner, 1997, 39, No. 6 = Smith, 1997, 27, D13 (Pl. VIIa) = Robert, 1987, 402, No. 5 = Chapouthier, 1935, 25-26, No. 3 and RECAM, V, 29 (Pl. 33) = IGSK, 57, 61 (Pl. 55) = Kearsley, 2002, 407 (Pl. 10) to the Dioskouroi; Mitchell, 1999, 138, No. 169 = Mitchell, 1993, II, 44 = TAM, V.2, 1400; Ameling, 1999-2000, 107 = Mitchell, 1999, 143, No. 234 (Pl. 3, p. 90) = Colpe, Low, 1994, col. 1051 = Hall, 1978, 265; Mitchell, 1999, 142, No. 225 = MAMA, X, 488; Peppers, 1980, 173, No. 1 (with fig. 1); Franken, 2002, 370, No. 1 (fig. 1); Franken, 2002, 370, No. 2 (fig. 2); Franken, 2002, 371, No. 4 (fig. 8); Franken, 2002, 371, No. 6 (fig. 5); Franken, 2002, 371, No. 7 (fig. 6) to Theos Hypsistos. 49   Mitchell, 1999, 139, No. 182 = Cook, Zeus, II.2, 881 (Pl. Xxxix). 50   Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2000, 8, No. D6 = Miller, 1985, 51 = MAMA, IV, 276 A I (Pl. 57). 51   CIMRM, I, 22 = TMMM, II, 4, p. 91 = Cumont, 1939, 70 = Wüst, RE, 30, 1932, col. 2151 = Robert, 1937, 305; TMMM, I, 362 and II, 55c; Will, 1955, 155; Cumont, 1939, 71-72 (and n. 5); Cumont, II, 1906, 367-369. 52   CMRDM, I, 28. 53   Petzl, 1994, nr. 71 = Malay, Petzl, 1985, 69-63, No. 4 (Pl. 3) = SEG, 35, 1164. 54   Diakonoff, 1979, 141-142, 145, No. 2 (fig. 3a-c); Diakonoff, 1979, 146-147, No. 14 (fig. 13 a-b); Diakonoff, 1979, 149, No. 25 (fig. 31); Herrmann, 1962, 37, No. 24 (Pl. 9, 1); and probably Diakonoff, 1979, 152-153, No. 39. 55   Mitchell, 1999, 143, No. 237 = Cronin, 1902, 124, No. 58; Ricl, 1991, 8-9, No. 15; Sartre, 1995, 326 = CMRDM, I, 53; Vollkommer, LIMC, VI.1, 1992, 470, No. 133 = Sartre, 1995, 326 = CMRDM, I, 54; Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2000, 22, No. K4 = Miller, 1985, 55 = MAMA, IV, 276 A III (Pl. 57). 56   IC, 14 (Pl. VII, No. 14). 57   Diakonoff, 1979, 144-145, No. 8 (fig. 10): eyes and breasts. 58   Peppers, 1980, 174, No. 3 (fig. 3). 59   Diakonoff, 1979, 144-145, No. 8 (fig. 10); Mitchell, 1999, 143, nr. 231 = TAM, III.1, 32 = Weinreich, 1912, No. 99, p. 20. 60   IGSK, 52, 37 = Sardis, VII.1, 152 = Robert, Hellenica, XIII, 133= NIS, I, p. 32-33 = Robert, 1962, 277, n. 3; Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2000, 21, No. K1 = Miller, 1985, 54 = MAMA, IV, 275 B I (Pl. 56). 43

120

Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat: Economy of the Sacred in Rural Anatolia And because the treasuries of the temples were the safest places to deposit money, and the amounts were substantial (in times of crisis these sanctuaries became some of the most important means of credit for individuals, cities, and sometimes even states.61 These fragments of epigraphic evidence, scanty as they are, provide a valuable insight into the way rural and urban sanctuaries, especially those dedicated to solar and lunar gods, functioned, as well as into their resources, mechanisms of survival and means of organization. They supplement the valuable data provided by literary sources, particularly Strabo. Bibliography Amandry, M., Rémy, B., Comana du Pont sous l’Empire romain. Étude historique et corpus monétaire, Edizioni Ennerre, Milano, 1999. Ameling, W., Ein Verehrer des THEOS HYPSISTOS in Prusa ad Olympum (IK 39, 115), in EA, 31, 1999-2000, p. 105-108. Bean, G.E., Notes and Inscriptions from Pisidia, I, in AS, 9, 1959, p. 67-117. Boyce, M., Grenet, F., A History of Zoroastrianism, III, Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, E.J. Brill, Leiden-New York-København-Köln, 1991 (Boyce, III). Bruit Zaidman, L., Schmitt Pantel, La religion grecque dans les cités à l’époque classique, IIIe édition, Armand Colin, Paris, 2002. Chapouthier, F., Les Dioscures au service d’une déesse. Étude d’iconographie religieuse, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1935. Clauss, M., Cultores Mithrae. Die Anhängerschaft des Mithras-Kultes, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1992. Colpe, C., Löw, A., Hypsistos (Theos), in RAC, XVI, 1994, col. 1035-1056. Cook, A.B., Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion, II, Zeus God of the Dark Sky (Thunder and Lightning), 1, Text and Notes; 2, Appendices and Index, University Press, Cambridge, 1925. Cumont, F., Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra, II, Textes et monuments, publiés avec une introduction critique, contenant 493 figures et 9 planches en héliotypie, Éditions H. Lamertin, Bruxelles, 1896 (TMMM). Cumont, F., Notes sur le culte d’Anaïtis, în Revue Archéologique, IVe sér., 5, 1905, p. 24-31. Cumont, F., Mithra en Asie Mineure, in Anatolian Studies Presented to Eilliam Hepburn Buckler, edited by W.M. Calder, Joseph Keil, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1939, p. 67-76. Dagron, G., Inscriptions de Cilicie, Éditions de Boccard, Paris, 1987.

Debord, P., Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie gréco-romaine, EPRO 88, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1982. Diakonoff, I., Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen. The Anaitisdedications in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden and related Material from Eastern Lydia, in BABesch, 54, 1979, p. 139-175. Dignas, B., Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford University Press, OxfordNew York, 2002. Dignas, B., Urban Centres, Rural Centres, Religious Centres in the Greek East. Worlds Apart?, in Asia Minor Studien, 45, Religion und Region. Götter und Kulte aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum, herausgegeben von Elmar Schwertheim und Engelbert Winter, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, 2003, p. 77-91. Drew-Bear, Th., Naour, Chr., Divinités de Phrygie, in ANRW, II, 18.3, p. 2032-2043. Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris, 23, Researches in Lydia, Mysia and Aiolis, edited by Hasan Malay, with 246 figures and a map, Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wiessenschaften, Wien, 1999 (ETAM, 23). Franken, N., Lampen für die Götter, in Ist Mitt, 52, 2002, p. 369-381. Götter, U., Tempel und Grossmacht: Olba/Diokaisareia un das Imperium Romanum, in La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux. Table Ronde Internationale, Istanbul, 2-5 Novembre 1999, édités par Éric Jean, Ali M. Dinçol et Serra Durugönül, Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes G. Dumézil, Istanbul, 2001, p. 304-315. Hall, A.S., The Clarian Oracle at Oenoanda, in ZPE, 32, 1978, p. 263-267. Herrmann, P., Varinlioğlu, E., Theoi Pereudenoi. Eine Gruppe von Wihungen und Sühneinschriften aus der Katakekaumene, in EA, 3, 1984, p. 1-18. Hogarth, W.M.R., Hogarth, D.G., Apollo Lermenus, in JHS, 8, 1887, p. 376-400. Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 11, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 1979 (IGSK, 11.1). Horsley, G.H.R., The Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Burdur Archaeological Museum, with contributions by R.A. Kearsley, Turkish translations by N. Alp, BIAA Monograph 34, The British Institute at Ankara, 2007 (RECAM, V). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 17, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, VII.1, herausgegeben von Recep Meriç, Reinhold Merkelbach, Johannes Nollé und Sencer Şahin, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 1981 (IGSK, 17, VII.1). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 52, ARAI EPITUMBIOI. Imprecations against Desecrators of the Grave in the Greek Epitaphs of Asia Minor. A Catalogue, edited by J. Strubbe, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 1997 (IGSK, 52). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 54, Die Inschriften von Perge, I, Vorrömische Zeit, frühe und

  Debord, 1982, 225-226.

61

121

SOMA 2010 hohe Kaiserzeit, herausgegeben von S. Şahin, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 1999 (IGSK, 54.1). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 57, The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, including texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boğazi, edited by G.H.R. Horsley and S. Mitchell, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 2000 (IGSK, 57). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 56, Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung, I, Inschriften aus dem Stadtgebiet und der nächsten Umgebung der Stadt, herausgegeben von M.H. Sayar, Rudolf Halbert Verlag Gmbh, Bonn, 2000. Kearsley, R.A., Cultural Diversity in Roman Pisidia: The Cult of the Dioscuroi, in Actes du Ier Congrès International sur Antioche de Pisidie, Lyon, 2002, p. 401-416. Lane, E., Corpus monumentorum religionis dei Menis, I, The Monuments and Inscriptions, with 105 plates, 36 figures and 2 folding maps, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1971 (CMRDM, I). Lane Fox, R., Païens et chrétiens. La Religion et la vie religieuse dans l’Empire Romain de la mort de Commode au Concile de Nicée, présenté par JeanMarie Pailler, traduit par Ruth Alimi, Maurice Montabrut, Emmanuel Pailler, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, Toulouse, 1997. Laroche, E., Catalogue des textes hittites, coll. «Études et commentaires», no. 75, Éditions Klincksieck, Paris, 1971 (CTH). Levick, B., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967. MacKay, T.S., The Major Sanctuaries of Pamphylia and Cilicia, in ANRW, II, 18.3, 1990, p. 2045-2129. MacMullen, R., Le paganisme dans l’Empire Romain, traduit de l’américain par Alain Spiquel et Aline Rousselle, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1987. Miller, K.M., Apollo Lairbenos, in Numen, 32, 1985, 1, p. 46-70. Milner, N.P., Votive Reliefs from Balboura and Its Environs. Epigraphical Appendix, in Anatolian Studies, 47, 1997, p. 33-49. Mitchell, S., Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, I-II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993. Mitchell, S., The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians, in P. Athanassiadi, M. Frede (ed.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 81-148. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, IV, Monuments and Documents from Eastern Asia and Western Galatia, edited by W.H. Buckler, W.M. Calder, W.K.C. Guthrie, Manchester University Press, London, 1933 (MAMA, IV). Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VII, Monuments from Eastern Phrygia, edited by Sir William M. Calder, Manchester University Press, London, 1956 (MAMA, VII).

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, X, Monuments from the Upper Tembris Valley, Cotiaeum, Cadi, Synaus, Ancyra and Tiberiopolis, recorded by C.W.M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen, edited by B. Levick, S. Mitchell, J. Potter and M. Waelkens, The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Monographs no. 7, Manchester University Press, London, 1993 (MAMA, X). Onurkan, S., Artemis Pergaia, in IstMitt, 19-20, 19691970, p. 289-298. Pedley, J., Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. Peppers, J., Four Roman Votive Bronzes in the Getty Museum, in Getty Journal, 8, 1980, p. 173-180. Petzl, G., Die Beitinschriften Westkleinasien, in EA, 22, 1994, p. 1-175. Ramsay, W.M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, in JHS, 4, 1883, p. 370-436. Ramsay, W.M., Artemis-Leto and Apollo-Lairbenos, in JHS, 10, 1889, p. 216-230. Ramsay, W.M., The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1895. Ramsay, W.M., The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I.2, West and West-Central Phrygia, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1897. Ricl, M., Le Sanctuaire des dieux Saint et Juste à Yaylababa Köyü, in ŽA, 40, 1990, p. 157-177. Ricl., M., Hosios kai Dikaios. Première partie: Catalogue des inscriptions, în EA, 18, 1991, p. 1-70. Ricl., M., Hosios kai Dikaios. Seconde partie: Analyse, in EA, 19, 1992, p. 71-103. Ricl., M., Hosios kai Dikaios. Nouveaux Monuments, in EA, 20, 1992, p. 95-100. Ricl, M., Society and Economy of Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Lydia an Phrygia, in EA, 35, 2003a, p. 77-101. Ricl, M., Varia epigraphica, in EA, 35, 2003b, p. 102-112. Rigsby, K.J, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1996. Ritti, T., Şimşek, C., Yıldız, H., Dediche e katagraphai dal santuario frigio di Apollo Lairbenos, in EA, 32, 2003, p. 1-88. Robert, L., Le Sanctuaire d’Artémis Pergaia et le voilement des femmes, in L. Robert, Hellenica, V, Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneure, Paris, 1948, p. 64-69 (Robert, Hellenica, V). Robert, L., Ville d’Asie Mineure. Études de géographie ancienne, Éditions de Boccard, Paris, 1962. Robert, L., Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes, I, Décret héllénistique de Sardes. Dédicaces aux dieux indigènes. Inscriptions de la synagogue, Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris, 1964 (Robert, NIS). Robert, L., Documents d’Asie Mineure, École Française d’Athènes, Athènes, 1987. Rostad, A., Confession or Reconciliation? The Narrative Structure of the Lydian and Phrygian ‘Confession

122

Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat: Economy of the Sacred in Rural Anatolia Inscriptions’, in Symbolae Osloenses, 77, 2002, p. 145164. Rostad, A., Human Transgression – Divine Retribution. A Study of Religious Transgressions and Punishments in Greek Cultic Regulations and Lydian-Phrygian Reconciliation Inscriptions, PhD Thesis, Department of Classics, University of Bergen, 2007. Sartre, M., L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien (IVe s. av. J.-C. – IIIe s. ap. J.-C.), Ed. Armand Colin, Paris, 1995. Sheppard, A.R.R., Pagan Cults of Angels in Roman Asia Minor, in Talanta, 12-13, 1980-1981, p. 77-101. Singer I., Hittite Prayers, ed. by H.A. Hoffner Jr., Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia, 2002. Strabo, The Geography, V, with an English translation by H.L. Jones, LCL 211, Harvard University Press/ William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, 1988. Strabo, The Geography, VI, with an English translation by H. L. Jones, LCL 223, Harvard University Press/ William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, 1989. Tituli Asiae Minoris, III, Tituli Pisidiae. Linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 1, Tituli Termessi et agri Termessensis, enarrauit Rudolphus Ederbey, collecti et editi auspiciis Academiae Litterarum Vindobonensis, in aedibus Hoedelderi/Pichleri/Tempskii, Vindobonae, 1941. Tituli Asiae Minoris, IV, Tituli Bithyniae. Linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 1, Peninsula Bithynicae praeter Calcedonem, Nicomedia et ager Nicomedensis cum septentrionali meridianoque litore sinus Austaceni et cum lacu Sumonensi, collecti et editi auspiciis Academiae Litterarum Austriacae, enarrauit Fredericus Carolus Dörner, adivvante Maria-Barbara von Stritzky, apud Academiam Scientiarum Austriacam, Vindobonae, 1973 (TAM, IV.1). Tituli Asiae Minoris, V, Tituli Lydiae. Linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 2, Regio septentrionalis ad Occidentem vergens, schedis ab Iosepho Keil elaboratis usus, enarrauit Petrus Herrmann, collecti et editi auspiciis Academiae Litterarum Austriacae, apud Academiam Scientiarum Austriacam, Vindobonae, 1989 (TAM, V.2). Vermaseren, M.J., Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, I-II, Martinus Nijhoff, Hagae comitis, The Hague, 1956-1960 (CIMRM). Weinreich, O., Theoi epēkooi, în Mitteilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Atenische Abteilung, 37, 1912, p. 1-68. Will, E., Le relief cultuel gréco-romain. Contribution à l’histoire de l’art de l’Empire Romain, E. de Boccard, Paris, 1955. Wüst, E., Mithras, in RE, 30 (1932), col. 2131-2155.

Sacred Space Organization a. Inscriptions 1. Sardis: Confirmation of the privileges conferred to the sanctuary of Mên Finding place: Çapaklı (NE of Sardis). Discovered at Gebeş Mahallesi, a city neighbourhood and found during research in 1993. Document type: Marble block; initially used as an architrave. Dimensions: 90 x 52 x 17 cm. Lettres: 2 cm (max.); traces of red paint at lines 2, 4 and 6. Preservation place: Manisa Museum. Inv. no. 7971. Bibliography: ETAM, 23, 131 (with fig. 136). Date: AD 188-189. Description: Text: 'Ep�[istol¾] ‚ tù swtÁri tÁj ™parce…aj ¢nq(up£tJ) ‚ 'Arr…J 'Antwne…nJ par¦ `Ermogš‚nouj toà Dhtr…ou Sardianoà new‚5kÒrou qeoà MhnÕj 'Askhnoà pro‚p£toroj toà Ôntoj ™n S£rdesin: ‚ œcontoj, kÚrie, d…kaia toà qeoà ™k ‚ basilikîn dwreîn kaˆ ™pikr…sewn ‚ ™nnÒmwn kaˆ ™pitrÒpwn kaˆ tÁj bou‚10lÁj kaˆ toà d»mou d…dosqai kat' œtoj ‚ ØpÕ tîn ¢rcÒntwn tÁj pÒlewj æris‚mšna k kekrimšna ™x œqouj + c/ e‡j ‚ te t¦j qus…aj k spond¦j toà qeoà ‚ k toà aÙtokr£toroj [n]e…khj te k a„‚15wn…ou diamonÁj k tîn ¢fqÒnwn kar‚pîn k dedomšnwn toÚtwn ØpÕ tîn ka‚t' œtoj ¢rcÒntwn, s»meron m¾ didomšnwn ‚ ØpÕ toà ™nestîtoj ¥rcontoj AÙr. Kth‚s…ppou k ™pˆ toÚtwn tîn qusiîn dšo‚20ma… sou tÁj tÚchj keleàsa… se tù ¥r‚conti AÙr. Kths…ppJ doànai t¦ ™x œqouj ‚ didÒmena + c/ prÕj tÕ t¦j qus…aj tù qeù ‚ t¦j nenomismšnaj ™ktele‹sqai: Ùpšta�‚x�a d k tîn prÕ soà ¢nqup£twn k ™pitrÒ‚25pwn ™pikr…seij. OÙenoul»Žoj B£lhj ‚ ™p…tropoj AÙtokr£toroj OÙespasianoà ‚ Sardianîn ¥rcousi ca…rein: ™x œqouj ‚ e„j t¦ toà MhnÕj must»ria corhgoÚmena ‚ eÜlogÒn ™stin d…dosqai ˜k£stou œtouj: ‚30 k 'Asp[r»n]a�j ¢nqÚpatoj� oÛt�[w]j? 2. Sardis: Inscription regarding water sources Finding place: Noticed by O. Rayet in 1974 near the agora and moved to Smyrna by Dom Pedro II. According to P. Perdrizet, in 1896 it was still in Sardis. Document type: Stone slab; right part broken, probably the same case for the upper part. Dimensions: 110 x 65 x 14. Preservation place: Unknown. Bibliography: Sardis, VII.1, 17; Perdrizet, 1896, 70-71 (fig. 12). Date: Roman imperial period (?). Representation description: Text: [---] ‚ kaˆ Ósoij ¢penem[»qh Ûdwr: kr»nh] ‚ gumnas…w gerousi[akî ™ntant…v -: kr»nh] ‚ musthr…oij dusˆ[n ™nant…a -: kr»nh] ‚ Domit…aj, (˜katont£)c(ouj) e/: kr»nh E?[name - cca 12 -] ‚5 kr»nh Lhnae‹t(ij) prÕj to‹j [- cca 19 -] ‚ kr»nh musthr…w ”Attei ™na?[nt…a ¢pÒrru] ‚ toj e„j tÕ DiÒj: sunagwgÁ[j kr»nh -] ‚ kr»nh prÕj tî 'Wde…w, (˜katont£)c(ouj) g/: [kr»nh name] ‚ tou prÕj tÁ distšgw tÁj [ - cca 6 - oá kaˆ] ‚10

123

SOMA 2010 pÚrgoi, (tetr)£(mfora) b/: ¢ndrofulak…o[u kr»nh ¿ ™pˆ] ‚ tÁ kaqÒdw ¢gor©j prÕj t�[- cca 8 -Ûdwr] ‚ [---] 3. Perge: Foundation of Marcus Feridius Finding place: Two fragments found in the theatre of Perge. Here the content of the fragment (b) is reproduced. Document type: Fragments belonging to a limestone slab. Dimensions: Fragment (b): 65 x 76 cm. Letters: 3 cm. Preservation place: Unmentioned. Bibliography: IGSK, 54.I, 66 (Plate XX). Date: Flavian period (AD 69-96). Representation description: Aniconical monument. Text: [name---] ‚02 [M©rkoj Fer…dioj---name---] ‚03 [Popl…ou uƒÕj---M©rkoj Fer…dioj] ‚1 [---]ato t¾n guna‹ka aÙtoà Popl…ou uƒÕj t¾n mhtšra aÙtoà ‚ Perga‹w]n y»fisma: ‚ [---™peid¾] M©rkoj Fer…dioj Popl…ou u„Õj filote…mwj ‚4 [---t]Õ sÚsthma tîn gera…wn DIHS ™teleiîsen ka‚[---™pˆ tîn d]hmos…wn crhmatisthr…wn ™n tÍ s»meron ¹mš‚6[rv ™dwr»sato to‹]j geraio‹j ¢mpšlouj aÙtoà t¦j oÜsaj ™n Arondv ‚ [--kaˆ t¾n cèran t¾]n oâsan par¦ tù „erù tÁj 'Artšmidoj, ™f û t¦j pro‚8[sÒdouj aÙtoj pr]o?sšcV e„j tÕn toà zÁn crÒnon: met¦ de tÕ katabiî‚[nai---™n tÍ geneql…J(?)---]ỊṬai aÙtoà ¹mšrv kat' œtoj ™n mhnˆ tr…tJ, tetr£di ‚10 [---èj oƒ pol‹tai ™pˆ tîn aÙtoà---]n ™nga…wn cwrîsin e„j te o‹non kaˆ ¥rton: sunekrei(?) ‚ [---¢gaqÍ tÚcV: œdoxe tÍ boulÍ ¢p]odedšcqai aÙtÕn kaˆ tete…mhsqai e„kÒni graptÍ ‚12 [™n ÓplJ ™picrÚsJ kaˆ stef£nJ crÚsJ ¢riste…]J kaˆ ¢ndri£nti kat¦ tÕn nÒmon: didÐsqai d aÙtù ‚ [tim£j, §j Ð dÁmoj ¢ndr£si kalo‹j kaˆ ¢gaqo‹j kaˆ] pefiloteimhšnoij d…dotai. 4. Perge: Dedication to Hadrian and donation of Mouas Finding place: Tower of Domitian. Document type: Paralellipipedic block, split in four parts, belonging to the tower of Domitian. Damaged inscription with numerous ligatures. Dimensions: Unknown. Letters: 4 cm (line 1); 3 cm (the others). Preservation place: Within the ruins of the tower. Bibliography: IGSK, 54. I, 77. Date: Trajan and Hadrian period (AD 98-138). Representation description: Text: (hedera) AÙtokr£tori Ka…sari Traianù `Adrianù Sebastù kaˆ 'ApÒllwni Lurbwtîn ‚2 MoÚaj Stas…ou TrokÒ[n]d?ou zîn kaˆ f?ronîn ¢pol[e…p]w [tÍ m]htr… mou [„]j tÕn tÁj zwÁj crÒnon mo[n£]g[r]ion ‚ tÒpJ bar?J kaˆ c/ ærvsm[šn]a[i] œleai kaˆ mosc£dej ™leîn tÒpJ Trisˆn ™lšaij: kaˆ ¥llJ tÒ[p]J legomšnJ ‚ prÕj KalliklÍdoj 'Armakv: m[e]t¦ d[e] t¾n teleut¾n tÁj mhtrÒ[j mou ¢]pole…pw qeù 'ApÒllwni L[ur]bwtîn, ™f' ú oƒ kat¦ œto[j] aƒroÚmenoi kwm£rcai pronoîsi[n], Ópwj misqoàntai t¦ prod[h]lo[Ú]me[na], kaˆ ¹ ¢p' aÙt[în] tÕ kat' ™niautÕn prÒsodoj? ‚6 cwrÍ e‡j te qus…aj toà 'ApÒllwnoj kaˆ ¢gorasmÕn o‡nou kaˆ ¥[r]twn „j tÕ ¥gesqa… moi ¹mšrai kaˆ ¢gînej tÕ ‚ kat' ˜niautÕn mhnˆ ™n£tJ tr…tV eÙwcoumšnwn p£ntwn tîn katoikoÚntwn t¾n kèmhn ™n tÍ ¹mšrv ¢pomnhmo‚8neÚesq[a]i ™mš te kaˆ KÒthn Stas…ou tÕn ¢delfÒn mou kaˆ K…llhn MÒou t¾n mhtš‚ra

mou, mhdenÕj œcontoj ™xous[…]an t¦ progegram[mšna] À kaˆ mšro[j] ti aÙtîn pwlÁsai ‚10 À ™xallotriîsai À tÕn ™x aÙtîn pÒron À kaˆ mšroj ti ¢[nal…skein] e„j ˜tšraj cre…aj kat¦ mhdšna trÒ‚pon: e„ de m», Ð par¦ t¦ Øp' ™moà diatetagmšna [poi»saj ¢po]teis£tw „j ”Artemin Perga…an ‚ dhn£ria ce…lia, kaˆ t¦ Øp' ™moà diatetagmš[na mene‹] kaqëj dietax£men „j tÕn ‚ (hedera) ¤panta crÒnon. 5. Amorion: Inscription regarding the celebration of mithrakana feast Finding place: Found at Gheumeh (Amorion), north of Asizie. Document type: Large limestone stele, triple-face inscription. Very damaged inferior edge. Dimensions: Unknown. Letters: Unknown. Preservation place: Unknown. Bibliography: CIMRM, I, 22 (with bibliography); TMMM, II, 4, p. 91; Cumont, 1939, 70; Wüst, RE, 30, 1932, col. 2151; Robert, 1937, 305. Date: Roman imperial period (?). Representation description: Text: I. [F]ulÁj Dˆoj mÚstai ™t…mhsan ‚ [K]Úrillan 'Antip£trou toà ka[ˆ ‚ G]a…ou qugatšra prÒmoiron, tÕn ‚ bwmÕn kaqosièsantej kaˆ e„j ‚ t¾n qrhske…an toà mnhmeˆou aÙ‚tÁj ¢gor£ntej par¦ OÙale[r]…ou K[a]l‚l…stw ¢mpšlwn ™n Lal[£n]dJ, tÒ‚pJ Kra[o]n…stra, plšqron ˜n k[½]mis[u], ‚ ™car…santo Ôpwj t¾n ™x aÙtîn prÒs‚[o]don katacrîntai ta‹j kat¦ œtoj ‚ [™]q…moij ¹mšraij to[‹j] M…qrak£‚[n]oij prosta[f]i£z[ontej, d]iamen[o‚us]în tîn ¢mpšlwn t[o‹]j sunestî‚[sin] ¢pÕ ¢rtˆ [m]Ústaij kaˆ t¾n lo[i]p¾n ™pimšle[ian p]oi[o]umnoij kaˆ ˜[aut]o‹j kaˆ ™g[gÒn]o[ij k]aˆ kl[hron‚Òmoi]j aÙtîn e„j dihneke…an [to‹j ‚ ™qel]»sasi [m]hdšn ™pib[iazesqai? ‚ ™¦n d'˜p]£kij oƒ mÚstai mhket[i‚qrh keÚ]wsi eŒn[a]i t . . i (?) .loij ‚ . . . io . . erili(?) o(?) .i.usmh ‚ . . . . . . . . . . . . aÙtoÝj Ð G£ioj ‚ . wsij. . . . . . en [e„]j ˜auto[n] ‚ . . te . . . . . . ‚ oj s. . . . . . ‚gii . . . . . . ‚ dw . . . . . . ‚ ene . . . . . . II. ['An]t…patroj b/ G£io[j ‚ œdw]ken ™car…sato fu‚lÁj DiÕj mÚstaij ¢m[pš]‚lwn tîn oÙsîn ™n La‚l£ndJ, tÒpJ Kraon…‚strv, plšqra tšssara ¼mi‚u ge…tosi Filètv 'Asklh‚p…adou kaˆ Sakk£lo[u `Rw]‚ma…ou klhrÒnomoi[j] ‚ Ópwj t¾n ™x aÙtîn [kar]‚pe…an katacr©sqai(n) ™[qš]‚lousin oƒ sunercÒme‚noi kaˆ qrhseÚontej [¹] ‚rùon Kur…llhj tÁj qu[g]a‚trÕj aÙtoà kat¦ œtoj ‚ ta‹j ™q…moij ¹mšraij ‚ to‹j Miqrak£noij: [™¦n] dš tij aÙtîn m¾ sunšlqV ½ m¾ sun[q]rVskeÚV aÙtÕj ‚ ½ klhronÒm[oi aÙtoà oƒ ‚ sun[m]et[šcontej . . . . . .]. III. [amp]šlwn tÕ kaqÒlou di¦ to t[e]‚timÁsqai t¾n qugatšra aÙt[oà ‚ Ø]pÕ tîn mustîn kaˆ ¢g£lmat[i] ‚ marmaršJ. 6. Kalburcu: Confession inscription of Apollonios mentioning Mên Axiottenos, Mên Tiamou and Anaitis Finding place: Found at Kalburcu. Petzl considers this (71), as well as nos. 68, 69 and 70 in his catalogue, as pertaining to a common sanctuary of Mother Anaitis and of Mên Tiamou from the area of Kula.

124

Iulian Moga and Yusuf Polat: Economy of the Sacred in Rural Anatolia Document type: White marble stele with damaged acroteria. Dimensions: 83 x 40 x 5 cm. Letters: 1.8 cm. Preservation place: Bergama Archaeological Museum. Inv. no. 4344. Bibliography: Petzl, 1994, no. 71 (with bibliography); Malay, Petzl, 1985, 69-63, No. 4 (with photo); SEG, 35, 1164. Date: AD 159-160 (= 244 Sullan era). Representation description: Mention of statues erected on behalf of Mên Tiamou and Anaïtis. Text: ”Etouj smd/, mh(nÕj) 'Apella…‚ou: 'Apollènioj 'Apollw‚n…ou megalorhmon»sa‚j MÁna 'AxietthnÕn kaˆ ‚5 ™kol£sqh. 'Ekšleusen aÙtoà to‹j „d…oij ¢nas?t?[Á]‚sai tÕn qeÕn MÁna Tiamo[u] ‚ kaˆ t¾n Anae‹tin. ParelkÚ?‚santoj d aÙtoà crÒnon ‚10 kaˆ m¾ ¢podidÒntoj t¾n 'Ap‚f…an, †na sthlograf»sei k?[a]‚ˆ t¦ mšrh paradèsei: kaˆ nàn ¢‚pod… dei tÕ mšroj tîn ¢npš‚15lwn ˜pˆ ta‹j Pag£si, §j ˜mšr?[i]‚se tÒpoj KlaÚdion M…lwna, gei‚ton…a 'AmÚnta kaˆ 'Onhs©. `Epˆ ‚ ƒ?eršwj 'Alex£ndrou MoÚr?‚kou. 7. Atychorion (Bahadınlar): The donation of Neikon from Motella to the sanctuary of Helios Apollo Lairbenos Finding place: In the area of Apollo Lairbenos sanctuary, north of the main temple. Document type: Limestone upper profiled base. Dimensions: 109 x 55-64 x 57 cm. Letters: 2.7-3.2 cm. Preservation place: Unknown. Bibliography: Ritti, Şimşek, Yıldız, 2000, 21, no. K1; Miller, 1985, 54; MAMA, IV, 275 B I. Date: February-March AD 178 (Ritti). Representation description: Aniconical monument. Text: ”Etouj sxb/ mhnÕj Xan|dikoà. 'Olunpi¦j Dio|nus…ou Blaoundhn» | ¹ kaˆ Mo(tellhn») katagr£fw Ne…|5kwna b/ tÕn uƒÒn mou | `Hl…J 'ApÒllwni Lair|mhnù, kaˆ ¥n tij ¢nte…|ph q»sei e„j tÕn qe|Õn + bf/ (leaf) kaˆ e„j tÕn |10 f…skon ¥lla + bf/. 8. Sardis: Imprecation against grave violation Finding place: Achieved from a store of Sart. Document type: Funerary stele. Dimensions: Unknown. Letters: Unknown. Preservation place: Currently disappeared. Bibliography: IGSK, 52, 37 (with bibliography); Sardis, VII.1, 152; Robert, Hellenica, XIII, 133; NIS, I, p. 32-33; Robert, 1962, 277, no. 3. Date: Roman imperial period (?). Representation description: Aniconical monument. Text: [---]d?u?[--‚2 --]mšnwn œxw b£lV ‚ [--- M]hnÕj Tumwle…[tou ‚4 kaˆ tîn qeîn t]în ¥llwn p£n[twn ‚ kecolwmšnwn] Úcoito met¦ p£n‚6[twn tîn ™kgÒn]wn, m»te q[r]emm£‚[twn Ônhsij e‡]h?, m»te Ñmm£twn ‚8 [Ôrasij, ¢ll›] ™xèlh gšnoito ‚ [met¦ tîn ™kgÒn]wn vac.

b. Literary References 1. Strabo, Geography, XII, 3, 37: The Sanctuary of Anaïtis at Zela ‘The whole of the country around is held by Pythododris, to whom belong, not only Phanaroea, but also Zelitis and Megalopolitis. Concerning Phanaroea I have already spoken. As for Zelitis, it has a city, Zela, fortified on a mound of Semiramis, with the temple of Anaïtis, who is also revered by the Armenians. Now the sacred rites performed here are characterized by greater sanctity; and it is here that all the people of Pontus make their oaths concerning their matters of greatest importance. The large number of temple-servants and the honours of the priests were, in the time of the kings, of the same type as I have stated before, but at the present time everything is in the power of Pythodoris. Many persons had abused and reduced both the multitude of temple-servants and the rest of the resources of the temple. The adjacent territory, also, was reduced, having been divided into several domains – I mean Zelitis, as it is called (which has the city Zela on a mound); for in early times the kings governed Zela, not as a city, but as a sacred precinct of the Persian gods, and the priest was the master of the whole thing. It was inhabited by the multitude of the temple-servants, and by the priest, who had an abundance of resources; and the sacred territory as well as that of the priest was the subject to him and his numerous attendants. Pompey added many provinces to the boundaries of Zelitis, and named Zela, as he did Megalopolis, a city, and he united the latter and Culupenê and Camisenê into one state; the latter two border on both Lesser Armenia and Laviansenê, and they contain rock-salt, and also an ancient fortress called Camisa, now in ruins. The later Roman prefects assigned a portion of these two governments to the priests of Zela, and a portion to Ateporix, a dynast of the family of tetrarchs of Galatia; but now that Ateporix has died, this portion, which is not large, is subject to the Romans, being called a province (and this little state is a political organization of itself, the people having incorporated Carana into it, from which fact its country is called Caranitis), whereas the rest is held by Pythodoris and Dyteutus’. (The Geography of Strabo, V, with an English translation by H.L. Jones, Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, 1988, p. 440-443) 2. Strabo, Geography, XII, 3, 36: The Sanctuary of Mâ at the Pontic Komana ‘Now Comana is a populous city and is a notable emporium for the people from Armenia, and the times of the “exoduses” of the goddess people assemble there from everywhere, from both the cities and the country, men together with women, to attend the festival. And there are certain others, also, who in accordance with a vow are always residing there, performing sacrifices in honour of the goddess. And the inhabitants live in luxury, 125

SOMA 2010 and all their property is planted with vines; and there is a multitude of women who make gain from their persons, most of whom are dedicated to the goddess, for in a way the city is a lesser Corinth, for there too, on account of the multitude of courtesans, who were sacred to Aphroditê, outsiders resorted in great numbers and kept holiday. And the merchants and the soldiers who went there squandered all their money, so that the following proverb arose in reference to them: “Not for every man is the voyage to Corinth.” Such, then, is my account of Comana.’ (The Geography of Strabo, V, with an English translation by H. L. Jones, Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, 1988, p. 438-439) 3. CTH, 375*: Prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal to the Sun-goddess of Arinna Concerning the Destructions Provoked by the Kaškan tribes ‘§1 (2.i 1-4) [Thus says] His Majesty, Arnwanda, Great King, and [Ašmunikal, Great Queen]: [To] you, O Sungoddess Arinna, [and to you, O gods (?), this prayer (?)], which Arnwanda […] §2′ (1.A i 1′-5′) Only Hatti is a true, pure land for you gods, and only in the land of Hatti do we repeatedly give you pure, great, fine sacrifices. Only in the land of Hatti do we establish respect for you gods. §3′ (1.A i 6′-8′) Only you gods know by your divine spirit that no one have ever taken care of your templates as we have. §4′ (1.A i 9′-13′) No [one] had ever shown more reverence to your [rites( ?)]; no one had ever taken care of your divine goods – silver and gold rhyta, and garments – as we have. (…) §7′ (1.A i 24′-27′) Furthermore, they used to oppress your servants and towns, O gods, by means of corvée duties; they would take your divine servants and maids and turn them into their own servants and maids. §8′′ (1.B i 9-11) [For you, O gods,] I, Arnwanda, Great King, [and Ašmunikal, Great Queen], [have shown] reverence in every respect.’ (I. Singer, Hittite Prayers, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Géorgia, 2002, no. 5, p. 40-42; E. Laroche, CTH, no. 375, p. 65-66; KUB, XVII, 21 et les duplicatas KUB, XXXI, 124 (+) XXXI, 72 şi KUB, XXIII, 115 + XXIII, 17 + XXXI 117) The article is a contribution for the project POSDRU/89/1.5/S/49944, Contributions to the Study of Some Interference Environments. Monotheistic Religions and Proselytism in Asia Minor and the Circumpontic Area; First to Third Centuries AD).

126

‘Green and brown’ white wares from the collection of the Archaeological Museum, National University of Kiev (Ukraine) Iana Morozova, Sergii Zelenko and Mariia Tymoshenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Kiev, Ukraine

The results of any archaeological excavation provide scientific data and collections of archaeological artifacts. The number of artifacts may vary from several items to thousands of finds, depending on the character and historical period of the archaeological site. All artifacts must go to museums for further scientific and conservation processing, and later on, for display to the public. Some artifacts will be displayed immediately, while others are stored with little chance of display unless part of a thematic exposition. One positive of all this is the collection will be stored together as a whole ceramic assemblage and will be accessible for researchers. An annual exhibition is held in the Museum of History of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev (KNU), where the archaeological findings and scientific achievements of the underwater archaeological expeditions are presented. The pottery discussed in this present article is stored in the museum and regularly displayed in the Museum’s exhibitions devoted to archaeological investigations in the Black Sea. Archaeologists and researchers from Kiev University conduct underwater archaeological research. The artifacts found during excavations, after field processing and initial inventory work go to the University’s laboratory and archaeological museum (Fig.1) for conservation and recording work. The selected artifacts, jugs and jars, table and kitchen wares, glass and metal go then to the Museum showcases. The glazed pottery is one of the most spectacular exhibits of the Archaeological Museum of KNU. This ceramic comprises diverse wares from various Byzantine workshops of the 13th century: dishes and plates, cups and bowls, all are of various sizes, shapes, glaze colours and decoration styles. The thematic exhibition ‘Medieval Patterns’, held in the University, showed the various ornaments and motifs on pottery from the 13th-century shipwreck (Fig.2). The shipwreck was discovered off the south-eastern coast of the Crimea by KNU’s archaeologists. Currently the archaeological site is well known due to the research publications and ongoing investigations on site. The cargo of the ship was probably bought in the markets of Constantinople. The collection of very specific and rare goods is represented by White Wares with polychrome painting among the other finds of the cargo. This pottery formed the basis of the ‘Medieval Patterns’ exhibition. This article offers a brief description of the Byzantine White Wares assemblage stored exhibited at KNU.

The group of white wares is well-known from Byzantine sites and well detailed in the literature (Talbot Rice 1930; Morgan 1942; Stevenson 1947; Peshlow 197778; Megaw 1972; and Hayes 1992). The wares are well illustrated in the Russian literature, however the quantity of finds is not large and the research texts are limited: Chersonesos (Danilenko 1996); Partenit (Parshina 2002, 101); Tamatarha-Matrega (Finogenova 1987, 195197; Makarova 1967); Mangup (Gerzen and Naumenko 2005, 260); Kiev and Russia (Koval 2010, 119). For Chersonesos the most cited works were written by A. L. Yakobson (1950; 1979). Also the corpus of glazed pottery from Cherosnesos with illustrations and catalogue was published by A. I. Romsnchuk (2003). P. Armstrong published her research on the Impressed White Wares (2001), D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi and her colleagues published the collection of the White Wares, including ‘Green and Brown’ type in the catalogue of Byzantine Glazed pottery in the Benaki Museum (D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al., 1999), B. BöhlendorfArslan devoted several chapters to the White Wares, and particularly to GWw4 in her book on glazed ceramics from Turkey (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004, 102-104). A short overview of the white wares from Bulgaria is given in Manolova 2000, 7-8. It is clear from a quick look at the literature that this pottery is found at many archaeological sites of the Byzantine period: from the Eastern Mediterranean (Turkey, Greece, Cyprus) to the Black Sea shores (the Black sea coasts of Bulgaria and Romania), through the Crimean Peninsula to the eastern edge of the Byzantine Black Sea (TamatarhaMatrega). An interesting observation was made when two archaeological assemblages from the 13th-century Crusader Akko and Novy Svet shipwreck were compared. Notwithstanding that two collections of pottery have many common features and very similar sets of forms and designs, the White Wares with polychrome painting have not yet been found in Akko (Avissar and Stern 2005). In the literature the painted white ware was given various names: GWw IV (Hayes 1992, 30-33), B4a (Stevenson, 1949, 47-48), and ‘Green and Brown Painted WaresWhite Biscuit’ (Morgan, 1942, 75-80). Furthermore this class has been attributed as ‘Green and Brown Painted Wares’ or ‘Brown Painted Wares’ or ‘Blue Painted Wares’ (Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al., 1999, 15-33). The dating of this group ranges from the end of the 11th century to the 13th century. In Chersonesos, according to the archaeological

127

SOMA 2010 evidence, the latest period of this production supply was the late 13th century (Romanchuk 2005, 93,100-101). The date of the shipwreck is the end of the 13th century according to the narrative source and archaeological assemblage (Zelenko 2008, 142-143). The collection of white biscuit Byzantine pottery from the Novy Svet shipwreck includes a significant number of open and closed vessels, both glazed and unglazed: plates, dishes, bowls, vases, jugs mugs and small pots. They are divided into three groups according to their decorative techniques: 1. Monochrome pottery without decoration or painted elements; 2. Polychrome pottery; 3. Unglazed pottery. This article concentrates on the glazed pottery of open forms. All such vessels are glazed, completely or partially, and in some cases the glaze extends on the outer surface to the top of the foot. The glazes range from olive-green to pure green in colour. On some vases the glaze is dark brown and covers the upper half of the outer surface, and sometimes is combined with splashes of brown paint inside. The clay is white, fine and varies from white (grayish white) to a yellowish or pink tone. The archaeological typology The morphological variations of this class are diverse and represented by seven types: 1. Plates (Fig. 3, 1.1-1.2) are represented by two main variants, with small typological differences. 1.1. Plates with an everted or ledge rim, on a low ring base. 1.2. Plates with a simple rim, on a low ring base. Diam. 20-23.6cm; H. 4.6-6.2сm; Foot diam. 4.4-10сm; Foot H. 0.8-1.2сm. 2. Bowls (Fig. 3, 2.1-2.4). 2.1. Hemispherical bowls on a low ring base. Diam. 16-18.2сm; H. 6-9.4сm; Foot diam. 6.2-8сm; Foot H. 0.8-1.6сm. 2.2. Hemispherical bowls with smaller capacity. The rim is simple and thin. They are scarcely carinated in their last third. The very low ring base, truncated cone in section, sometimes compound in section. Diam.12.2-13.8сm; H. 5.4-6сm; Foot diam. 4.8-5.8сm; Foot H. 0.8-1сm. 2.3. Bowls with carinated body on a low ring base. Diam. 16сm; H. 7.6сm; Foot diam. 7сm; Foot H. 1.6сm. 2.4. A bowl of conical shape on a medium height ring base. A smooth outline of the body is carinated in its low part of the body. Diam.18-18.4сm; H. 7.4-8сm; Foot diam. 7сm; Foot H. 1.4сm. 3. Cups without handles on a high base (Goblets) (Fig.3, 3.1-3.2)

Small open vessels set on a stem, with a carinated body and a high vertical rim. 3.1. A slightly flaring vertical body, carinated in the upper part of the vessel. Diam. 10-14 сm; H. 6-8 сm; Foot diam. 4.4-6.6 сm; Foot H. 1.6-2.4 сm. 3.2. Conical shape on a raised base. The fold is performed by the ridge in the upper part of the vessel. Diam. 13сm; H. 8.6сm; Foot diam. 5.2сm; Foot H. 2.4сm. 4. Bowls, so called ‘fruit stand’ (Fig. 3, 4). Deep bowls with a simple rim, a very high foot, flaring sharply at the bottom, with conical or bulbous upper part, supports a broad, plate-like body, bordered by a narrow rim the edges of which are marked by curved ridges. Diam.18-m; H. 10-12сm; Foot diam. 7-8сm; Foot H. 3сm. 5. Bowls with a rounded wide body (Fig. 3, 5) Deep bowls, rounded in their lower part, not large, with incurved walls going to the ledge rim. 6. Mugs (Fig. 3, 6) A small, partly closed vessel with one handle. 7. Cups without handles on a low base (Fig. 3, 7) A homogeneous group of conical vessels on a very low ring base. Walls are vertical or slightly incurved to the simple rim. Diam.12-14сm; H. 6-7.8сm; Foot diam. 4.2-5.6сm; Foot H. 0.8-1сm. Decoration Decoration of this class of pottery is rich and varied. An ornament is painted on the inner surface of the vase, the outer side of the body is plain, undecorated, the glazes are yellow, light or dark-green or brown. Some vases are unglazed on their exterior. Ornamental devices on the exterior are peculiar for deep and small forms-cups, goblets and ‘rounded’ bowls. Monochrome vessels are rather homogeneous and not as spectacular as their painted counterparts. In the Novy Svet collection, ‘Green and Brown painted’, ‘Brown painted’ and possibly one example of ‘Blue Painted ware can be distinguished. The technique and style of painting is consistent in pattern: the painting is made with a brush, a broad blurred contour is outlined with brown paint, and pattern elements are filled with darkgreen colour that has a secondary meaning. In some cases the green colour forms individual ornamental elements, equally with the brown colour. The brown paint is darker and denser, while the green is lighter and runs when it covers the surface. The hue of the background is similar to the monochrome vessels – uncoloured, with shades of yellow, green or olive. This quotation from The Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum is relevant here: ‘The characteristic

128

Iana Morozova, Sergii Zelenko, Mariia Tymoshenko: ‘Green and brown’ white wares feature of the decoration is the blurred outlines that impart a kind of “movement” and a “fleeting” quality, to the motifs. These blurred outlines are due to the fact that the vase was coated with glaze immediately after it was painted.’ (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 25) This is accurate for all the finds from the Novy Svet shipwreck. Three basic GWw4 motifs from the Novy Svet wreck have been identified: 1. Floral or vegetal motifs; 2. Abstract and geometrical motifs; 3. Faunal depictions – animals and birds. 1. The floral or vegetal motifs comprise rosettes, placed in the centre of medallion; vignettes, composed of adjusted circles; spiral and angular figures, sometimes identified as shells or stars (Fig. 4, 1-3). 2. Abstract and geometrical group comprises spiral devices (Fig. 4, 4-5). The motif is presented by a single line, going as the concentric circles from the vessel’s centre, and by advanced elements: two or four spirals. The design of the outer surface of a vessel is simpler, has an abstract, geometrical or floral/vegetal character (Fig. 4, 6). The composition has a concentric pattern, the devices are arranged in a full circle or pictures unfold from the base to the rim. 3. Faunal images form the independent and perfect compositions. Two main groups can be distinguished here – animals (beasts) and birds. There are twenty-eight identified depictions of animals and birds in the Novy Svet collection. All are depicted as individual ‘free-style’ large figures, occupying the whole area of the vase. Almost all have well recognized iconography, known from various archaeological objects. Animals (beasts): a beast of prey and a hare (Fig. 4, 7-9) The beast is an animal of canonical feline shape. The animals are shown walking or standing to the right, with the body in profile and full face mask. Four paws and a tail are visible. The pictures are drawn with a brown contour, a green colour filling or a scale pattern. On several pictures the animal’s head shows spiriform ears – perhaps a lynx (Fig. 4, 9). At least six examples illustrate the Byzantine hare form (Fig. 4, 10-12). The animal always moves dynamically to the right with all four paws shown. The head is turned to the left or faces straight ahead. In all cases the head is shown in profile with two ears. Birds The vessels described here represent birds primarily in three attitudes: either facing to the right, sitting or standing, with the head turned back or in true profile, and one image

shows the bird airborne with two outspread wings in frontal view, with head turned in profile. In the Novy Svet collections two types of birds can be identified – a bird of prey (possibly a falcon) and a pigeon (Fig. 4, 13-15). The formalized image of the bird of prey, its turned head, its beak and long pointed outspread wings give suggests the heraldic character of the picture (Fig. 4, 14). The second attitude presents dove/pigeon iconography (Fig. 4, 15).The pigeon is turned to the right, head and body represented in profile. Wings are either close to the body or slightly raised. The described White Wares (GWw4) with polychrome painting show a set of images of the Byzantine bestiary. It is peculiar to standard secular Byzantine art and represents the motifs and artistic images which had been widely spread in medieval decorative art in the Mediterranean regions – as widely seen in fresco, carving and metalwork. The semantics of the pictures on the pottery and on common-everyday things had protective and incantatory meanings and were connected to Christian folk traditions. The floral and faunal motifs on the vessels from Novy Svet have analogues and variations in collections from Greece and Chersonesos (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 28, pl. 27; 29, pl. 30; 30, pl. 36-37; Romanchuk 2003, pl. 195, no. 521). The value and significance of the shipwreck at Novy Svet are substantial. The archaeological site and its material finds are accompanied by narrative evidence that indicates a fairly secure date linked to the end of the 13th century (1277). This is the reliable source for dating the ceramic assemblage. Our finds are of great interest within the corpus of complete vases of many classes, including GWw4. The site can serve as a reference for researchers who study typology and artistic design of similar pottery. References Armstrong, P. (2001) From Constantinople to Lakedaimon: Impressed White Wares. British School at Athens Studies. 8, 57-67. Avissar, M. and Stern, E. J. (2005) Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods. Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 26. Jerusalem Böhlendorf-Arslan, B. (2004) Die glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Türkei. Istanbul. Ege Yayinlari. Danilenko, V. N. (1996) Beloglinianaia polivnaia keramika Khersonesa. Materialy po arheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5, 135-145. Finogenova, S. I. (1987) Polivnaia keramika iz raskopok Tamanskogo gorodischa. Sovetskaia arheologiia 2, 192-211. Gerzen, A. G. and Naumenko, B. E. (2005) Polivnaia keramika iz raskopok zitadeli Mangupa. In S. G. Botcharov and V. L. Mytz (eds.), Polivnaia keramika

129

SOMA 2010 Sredizemnomoria i Prichernomoria X-XVIII vv., 257287. Kiev. Stilos. Hayes, J. W. (1992) Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul. The Pottery. Princeton. Princeton University Press Koval, V. Yu. (2010) Keramika Vostoka na Rusi IX-XVII veka. Moskva. Nauka. Makarova, T. I. (1967) Polivnaia posuda (iz istorii keramicheskogo importa i proizvodstva Drevnei Russi). Svod arheologicheskih istochnikov E1-38, 8-34. Manolova, M. (2000) K’m v’prosa za pazprostranenieto na beloglinenaa vizantiiska trapezna keramika v b’lgarskite zemi ot kraia na VIII do kraia na XII vek. Arheologiia 1-2, 1-14 Megaw, A. H. S. (1972) Supplementary Excavations on a castle Site at Paphos, Cyprus, 1970-71. Dumbarton Oaks Publications 26. Morgan, C. H. (1942) Corinth, XI: The Byzantine Pottery. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D., Marikiou, F. N. and Bakirtzis, Ch. (…) Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum. Athens. Benaki Museum.

Parshina, E. A. (2002) Drevnii Partenit (po materialam raskopok 1985-1988 gg.). Alushta i Alushtinskii region s drevnih vremen do nashih dnei, 89-109. Kiev. Stilos. Peschlow, U. (1977-1978) Byzantinische Keramik aus Istanbul. Ein Fundkomplex bei der Irenenkirche. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 27-28, 363-414. Romanchuk, A. I. (2003) Glazurovannaia posuda pozdnevizantiiskogo Khersona. Ekaterinburg. Romanchuk, A. I. (2005) Nahodki glazurovannoi keramiki pozdnevizantiiskogo vremeni v Khersonese: mestnoe proizvodstvo i import. In S. G. Botcharov and V. L. Mytz (eds.), Polivnaia keramika Sredizemnomoria i Prichernomoria X-XVIII vv.,93-109. Kiev. Stilos. Stevenson, R. B. K. (1947) The Pottery 1936-7. In The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. First Report. Oxford. Talbot Rice, D. (1930) Byzantine Glazed Pottery. Oxford. Yakobson, A. L. (1950) Srednevekovi Khersones XII-XIV vv. Materialy i issledovania po arheologii SSSR 17. Moscow. Yakobson, A. L. (1979) Keramika i keramicheskoe proizvodstvo srednevekovoi Tavriki. Leningrad. Nauka.

Fig. 1. Processing finds in the archaeological laboratory at Kiev National University 130

Iana Morozova, Sergii Zelenko, Mariia Tymoshenko: ‘Green and brown’ white wares

Fig. 2. The exhibition ‘Medieval Patterns’ held Museum of History of the Kiev National University

in the

Fig. 3. Types of ‘Green and Brown’ White Wares from the Novy Svet shipwreck collection

131

SOMA 2010

Fig. 4. Decorative motifs of ‘Green and Brown’ White Wares from the Novy Svet shipwreck collection 132

Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures in the upper Tigris region: a case study of Salat Tepe and its environment Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş Kocaeli University, Turkey Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey

Introduction The Upper Tigris region has been archaeologically a terra incognita until the last decades. The span of the Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures include the region, since surveys and excavations are being undertaken within the salvage project of the Ilısu Dam. Salat Tepe on the western bank of the Salat River is one of the sites providing material from the Chalcolithic period (Fig. 1). The excavations at the step trench (trenches E-J 12) point to a dense occupation throughout a period of ca. 3500 years (Ökse 2005: 781-800; Ökse and Görmüş 2006: 177, 185-186; Ökse et al. 2007; 2009; 2010a). In Trench E 12 a natural pebble terrace was unearthed. According to the outermost architecture reached in the northern step of Trench F 12, the Chalcolithic settlement occupies an area of ca. 150m in diameter, and according to the uppermost Chalcolithic levels, the chalcolithic hill is ca. 15m high (Fig. 1, 6). The earliest levels dating to the Early Ubaid period are overlaid by Late Ubaid levels, and the Late Chalcolithic levels were unearthed in the northern trenches. Early Ubaid Period Early Ubaid and Halaf painted wares occur in the lowest levels to the south (Fig. 2). The northern part of a ‘grillplanned’ building in Trench F 12 North was built of 2 rows of mud bricks ca. 40-50cm in width, linked by mud mortar. Pieces of mud brick walls situated at right angles to this wall belong to several renovation phases. Grill-planned storage buildings with low pisé walls for supporting raised floors are found in the Early Ubaid levels of Tell Kurdu and Tell al-‘Abr (ca. 5000-4800 BC), from the lowest Ubaidian level (ca. 4800 BC) in Tell Ziyadeh (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 162-166; Campbell 2007) and from Tepe Gawra XV-A (Tobler 1950: Pl. XV-XVII). In Trench H 12 South, a mud plastered pebble stone floor, quadrangular plastered pits encircled with mud bricks to the south and mud brick walls belonging to several building phases represent this period. The walls of a cell-plan building in Trench H 12 North are built of long quadrangular mud bricks produced from broken pieces of earlier mud bricks and clay mortar, like those in Telul eth Thalatat D (Egami 1959: 3-4, fig. 29). The eastern profile of the ca. 1.5m deep sounding in one of the rooms shows two thick clay deposits between three thinner dark layers and they are remains of wattle roofs belonging to multiple phases of walls rebuilt on the former ones. Among the small

finds from this building, terracotta quadruple figurines and a small serpentine earring are noteworthy. The pottery assemblage is composed of flint-scraped ware (Coba bowls), sherds with combed decoration and painted wares. A few sherds of fine-paste, well finished, fine decorated and highly burnished vessels with pinkish buff slip and purplish dark brown paint belong to the Halaf period (Fig. 3, 6). These are decorated with chevrons, cross-hatched triangles and lozenge rows, identical to the Halaf pottery assemblages from Siirt Türbe Höyük (Sağlamtimur and Ozan 2008: fig. 2), Girikihaciyan (Watson and Leblanc 1990: fig. 4.0: 1-8), Korucutepe A (Brandt 1978: 58, Pl. 107), Kurban Höyük VIII (Algaze et al. 1990: Pl. 1-8), Boztarla (Algaze et al. 1994: 9, Pl. 23L), Boztepe (Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig. 5-6), Domuztepe (Campbell et al. 1999) and Kazane Höyük (Bernbeck et al. 1999: 116, figs. 10-13). Halaf patterns appearing on Early Ubaid vessels are unburnished and applied simply, as is common for the Ubaid style. Thick bands on funnel-necks, a wavy line under thick rim-bands, thin wavy lines between thick bands, rows of solid triangles and hatched lozenges, checkerboard pattern, dots and zigzags dominate the decoration. Similar assemblages representing the Halaf-Ubaid transition have been found at a long list of sites, including: Norşun Tepe (Gülçur 2000: Abb. 51), Değirmentepe 3 (Esin 1983: Abb. 7), Carchemish (Woolley 1934: fig. 17), Hammam et-Turkman IVA (Akkermans 1988a: Pl. 68-76), Tell Abuda L.I (Jasim 1985: fig. 132, 163), Tell Leilan VIb (Schwartz 1988: fig. 67-69), Ninive (Gut 1995: Taf. 5254), Tepe Gawra XVI-XV-A (Tobler 1950: 137-139, Taf. LXXVI-LXXVII), Tell Halaf (Baghdo et al. 2009: 121), Kashkashok (Koizumi 1993: 48-49, fig. 12; 1996), Choga Mami (Oates 1983: fig. 4), Telul eth Thalatat Ib-III (Ubaid Ia-b) (Egami 1959: Pl. LVIII, LIV, LII-LI, fig. 15-20, 5556), Tell al-‘Abr 7-6 (Stage I) (Yamazaki 1999: 87-88, fig. 3:1-16), Tell Kosak Shamali Sector A (Nishiaki 1999: 72, fig. 5), and Sweyhat Survey period II (Wilkinson 2004: 85-86). According to the Balikh III C contexts in Tell Sabi Abyad (Nieuwenhuyse 1997: 229, 233), Amuq C-D, Tell Halaf (Schmidt 1943: XLII-LIV), Tell Chagar Bazar and Arpachiah (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 115, 136139, fig. 4.2; Akkermans et al. 2006: tab. 1.1-2), the Late Halaf period is dated to ca. 5500-5300/5200 BC, and the Halaf-Ubaid transition develops in ca. 5300-5200 BC (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 157).

133

SOMA 2010 Late Ubaid Period Earlier levels dating to the Late Ubaid period are unearthed in the southern part of the step trench (Fig. 2). A hearth in Trench H 12 South is the northernmost architectural feature. At a mud brick structure in Trench G 12 North, storage pits were uncovered below whitened remains of wattle roofs. The pits are encircled with vertical placed mud bricks covered by a thick white plaster at several phases; these are generally quadrangular in shape and one rounded pit was lined with broken sherds of painted vessels. The pits are filled with hard layers of ashy mud, probably to create a rough level for a later building phase. A floor at the eastern part, and a lower level near the quadrangular area at the south-western corner, belong to a building that was constructed by levelling the pit at the northern part. After the northern wall collapsed, the floor was once more levelled and the south-western wall constructed on top of the previous one. A clay floor in Trench G 12 South contains basalt grinding stones. An east-west oriented wall to the north is related to plastered quadrangular storage units. Mud brick walls disturbed with modern graves represent the upper level in Trench F 12 North, and ash deposits overlie another floor in Trench F 12 South. Thick ash deposits overlying these levels are 90cm in thickness in Trench H 12 North and 3m in F 12. These contexts contain monochrome and painted sherds (Fig. 4); a pot with painted decoration shows the characteristics of Early Ubaid period. The pottery from Trench G 12 North is composed of Early Ubaid painted and chaff-tempered monochrome wares, cooking pots and a few sherds with combed decoration. Two spherical bowls found in situ in Trench G 12 South are dark slipped on the exterior. In the ash deposits overlying these levels coarse grit tempered monochrome funnel necked jars dominate, chaff tempered Coba bowls and painted pottery represent the second common group. Among the small finds, a broken head of a terracotta figurine from the floor in Trench G 12 South and a piece of a small ring-amulet in Trench F 12 South are noteworthy (Ökse 2004: 637, fig. 624; 2005: 783-785). Later levels were uncovered in a further part of the step trench. A wall built of light coloured mud bricks resting on a light brown coloured thick clay floor in Trench H 12 North was built on top of an earlier wall; in a later phase, a quadrangular storage pit was attached to its southern face. The floor of an oven and a compacted clay floor with post holes uncovered in Trench H 12 South are bordered with a mud brick wall from the south; a plastered storage pit is attached to the northern face of this wall. Irregular ash layers between traces of pisé walls at the ca. 2m high eastern profile of this step point to interruptions between occupation phases. In the eastern part the mud brick walls are constructed on a mud plastered floor constructed with mud, bones, pot sherds and pebbles; three plastered storage pits were built to the west of this floor.

The pottery collected from these contexts consists of ca. 66% of monochrome and ca. 33% of painted sherds (Fig. 6). The most frequent forms are funnel-necked jars and deep bowls with black and red painted decoration. The remaining group is composed of flint scraped and combed sherds and dark coloured cooking pots. In contrast to the intensively and elaborately applied decoration of the Early Ubaid period, painted thick bands and wavy lines dominate the Late/Northern Ubaid tradition (Akkermans 1988b: 128; Henrickson and Thuesen 1989: 457; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 170), found also at Siirt Türbe Höyük (Sağlamtimur and Ozan 2008: fig 3; Ozan 2009: 412, fig. 4-5, 7), Yeniceyanı (Bernbeck et al. 2004: 125-126, fig. 5-6) and Kenantepe (Parker and Swartz Dodd 2005: 71-73, fig. 6-7; Parker et al. 2006: 84-94, fig. 13-22; 2008: fig. 8; 2009: 89-93, fig. 6-15). Assemblages with painted and scraped wares in the Euphrates region are registered in Norşuntepe (Gülçur 2000: 380-381), Korucutepe (Brandt 1978: 58, Pl. 107: 8, 12), Değirmentepe (Esin 1983; Gürdil 2005: 294-313, 324), Kurban Höyük (Wilkinson 1990: 90, 205-208, fig. B.4) and Tilbeş Höyük (Jesus and Charvar 2002: 12-125, fig. 5-6). In northern Syria flint scraped and conical bowls, carinated jars with naturalistic and negative painted designs appear in Telul eth Thalathat XIII-XIV (Egami 1959: 6, 54-55, fig. 20-24, 51-55; Fukai et al. 1970: 32-40, 83-86, Pl. LXXI) and Tell al-‘Abr 5 (Stage II) (Yamazaki 1999: 88); beaded rim bowls decrease in these contexts. Bowls with carelessly applied decoration, straight and wavy lines, solid pendent semi-circles, broad pendent zigzags and the straight or flaring walled bowls and funnel-necked globular jars predominate in Hammam et-Turkman IVB (Akkermans 1988a: 202, 223-226, Pl. 77-80), and IVC is characterized by increasing chaff tempered and scraped wares, decreasing mineral tempered smoothed wares and a small proportion of painted pottery (Akkermans 1988a: 202, Pl. 81-86). Flat based bowls with interior lip, jars without neck and funnel neck jars are common in these contexts. The Northern Ubaid period is separated into two subphases. Ubaid Phase 3 is dated to ca. 5200-4400 BC in Tell Halaf (Baghdo et al. 2009: 121) and Tell Kosak Shamali (Nishiaki 2001: 155-157), and Ubaid Phase 4 to ca. 45004000 BC. In Kenantepe the Ubaid Phase 3 is represented by cellplan buildings with multiple overlying surfaces (Parker et al. 2006: 94; Parker et al. 2008: 105-108, 136, tab. 1); structures 1 and 5 (Ubaid Phase 2, 4700-4600 BC) and the burned ‘Ubaid Structure 4’ (Ubaid Phase 3) with reed mats on the floors. The Ubaid Phase 4 (terminal Ubaid/LC I, ca. 4400-4200 BC) is characterized by large quantities of flint scraped bowls, and open bowls with round, flat and everted-beaded rims and by a smaller portion of painted fine vessels in Kenantepe (Parker et al. 2008: 110; 2009: 90, 110-113), Amuq D/E (Braidwood and Braidwood 134

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region 1960: 157-189, fig. 144-157; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 187-190, fig. 5.2; Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 150) and Arslantepe VIII (4300-3900 BC) (Frangipane 2000: 451, fig. 3). These contexts are parallel to Tell Brak D (Oates and Oates 1994: 173, tab. 1), Tell Leilan VIa-b (ca. 4000/4500-3900 BC) (Schwartz 1988: 57-76, fig. 62-69; Mazzoni 2000: 99) and Hammam et-Turkman IVB-C (ca. 4200-3700/3600 BC) (Akkermans 1988b: 128-131, fig. 2-6). Late Chalcolithic Period The Late Chalcolithic levels uncovered in the northern part of the step trench at Salat Tepe are separated into two phases separated by thick ash deposits (Fig. 1-2). The earlier levels are exposed in trenches H-I 12. In Trench I 12 North three levels with several rounded hearths built on top of each other were unearthed. In the lowest level eight ovens were built on a white plastered hard floor containing a large amount of painted sherds probably carried with the material from lower levels. In Trench I 12 South, an oval kiln was uncovered under the remains of mud brick and pisé walls; the firing part was located along the eastern narrow face. The inner surface is plastered with mud mortar, and a thick greenish to yellowish brown coloured slag layer covers the surface, indicating high temperatures reached during firing. Closest parallels are a Post-Ubaid (LC 2-3) pottery workshop and pottery kiln in Tell Kosak Shamali 6-5 (Nishiaki 1999: 73; 2001: 155157; Koizumi and Sudo 2001: 120-135) and the kilns in the Late Ubaid levels of Değirmentepe (Gürdil 2005: 367). In Trench H 12 North clay floors and rows of quadrangular storage units constructed of mud brick walls show several building phases. These contexts contain a great portion of grit tempered monochrome pottery, however, the chaff tempered and fine monochrome vessels increase in number. A considerable portion of sherds have scraped surfaces, and a smaller amount are decorated with notches and comb designs as well as impressions; the painted ware is represented by a few sherds. The vessels are mostly composed of open shapes with slightly thickened out rims, short cylindrical and funnel necked, straight and spherical bodied jars. A shallow plate with thickened rim is found inside the kiln in Trench I 12, and a rim sherd of a bevelled rim bowl to its south (Fig. 5). These assemblages are characteristic within an area from Amuq E-F (Mazzoni 2000, 98) to the Upper Euphrates region (Gülçur 2000: 378-379, 382-383). In Arslantepe VII (3900-3400 BC) the earlier bowl types are rounded and flint-scraped, and the later forms are conical bowls with wide flat bases (Frangipane 1993: 147-155; 2000: 440-444, 451, Tab. 1) as well as necked jars (Trufelli 1994: 261, fig. 12). Similar forms are found at Norşuntepe (Hauptmann 1976: 55-56, Taf. 49; 1979, Pl. 29-30; 1982: Taf. 36-37), Korucutepe B (Brandt 1978: Pl. 103), Hayaz Höyük (Thissen 1985: 98, 119, fig. 1), Oylum Höyük

(Özgen et al. 1999: 50-51, 66, fig. 17), Kurban Höyük V-VI (Algaze et al. 1990: Pl. 30, 42-44), Hassek Höyük (Hoh 1981: fig. 2, 12), Horum Höyük (Marro et al. 1998: Pl. XI), Hacınebi B1 (3600-3500 BC) (Pollock and Coursey 1995: 136-137, fig. 3-4) and Zeytinlibahçe LC 3 (37003500 BC) (Balossi Restelli 2006: 18-23). In the multiroomed, mud brick domestic structures at Zeytinlibahçe the grit tempered pottery increases; conical bowls with beaked rims, reserved slipped vessels and bevelled rim bowls appear (Frangipane 2007: 127, fig. 8.5.2-3; 2010: 190, fig. 5-8), and large plates, carinated bowls, funnelnecked jars and short necked jars with thickened-out rims are common (Balossi Restelli 2006: fig. 5 O-Q, 7-11). The shallow plate with thickened rim found inside the kiln at Salat Tepe is known from Arslantepe VII (Frangipane 1993: fig. 10; Frangipane 2000: 457), Hacınebi A (Early Uruk, 4200-3700 BC) (Pearce 2000: 117, 121, fig. 2 f-i, 5 a-e) and Zeytinlibahçe (Frangipane 2007: 127, fig. 8.5.1). Hammam et-Turkman IVD is characterized by decreasing mineral tempered smoothed wares and increasing chaff tempered and scraped wares, large pots and flat based bowls (Akkermans 1988a: 226, Pl. 91-96; 1988b: 126127); the end of this phase is dated to 3700/3600 BC. In Tell al-‘Abr 4-2 (Stage III) the painted pottery is 20% of the total, the painted design becomes simpler, the scraped ware dominates and necked jars with carinated bodies increase (Yamazaki 1999: 89, fig. 2: 17-31); monochrome vessels and hammer-head rim bowls are characteristic in Tell Kosak Shamali Sector B (Nishiaki 1999: 73). These assemblages are dated roughly to the first half of the 4th millennium BC (Jasim 1985; Koizumi 1993; Merpert and Muchaev 1993; Esin 1983: 190; Oates 1983: 260-262; Akkermans 1988b: 130; Porada et al. 1992: 77-121, fig. 3; Helwing, 2000: 146-147; Tobler 1950: 140-151; Esin 1983:190; Oates 1983: 260-262; Porada et al. 1992: 96, fig. 3), to LC 2 (ca. 4200/4100-3900/3800 BC) and LC 3 (ca. 3900/3800-3600 BC) (Rothman and Blackman 2003: 5). A terracotta eye-idol with two broken loops from Trench H 12 North (Fig. 5) is parallel to those from Tepe Gawra XI, XI-A, XII (Speiser 1935: 100, Pl. XLIV:C; Tobler 1950: 59-61, Pl. LXXXVIa, CLVI 59-61, CLVII 62-67), Arslantepe VIA (Frangipane 1993: 142, fig. 7:1), Tell Brak CH 13-14 (Oates 1986: 250-251), Zeytinlibahçe LC 3 (Middle Uruk) (Frangipane 2007: 127, fig. 8.6.2; 2010: 190, fig. 6), Hacınebi LC B 1-2 (ca. 3700-3300 BC) (Stein et al. 1996: fig. 8A) and Türbe Höyük (Sağlamtimur and Ozan 2008: fig. 4a). Stone pendants, bone drillers and a scratched stone stamp seal are parallel to those found in Değirmentepe (Gürdil 2005: 347-348) and Tepe Gawra XIII (Tobler 1950: Pl. XCI, XCIIa:5, CLVIII-CLX, XCVIII-XCIXa). Thick ash deposits overlying these early levels are ca. 25cm thick in Trench I 12 and ca. 1m thick in Trench H 12 North. Monochrome sherds dominate these deposits; however, a few painted sherds and a few body sherds with 135

SOMA 2010 horizontal reserved slip (Trentin 1993) on the exterior have appeared in Trench H 12 North.

and Amuq G (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: fig. 21820; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 201-202).

The later levels constructed on these ash deposits were uncovered in the northern steps (Fig. 2). In the uppermost level in Trench I 12 North, mud brick and pisé walls built on top of older ones, and several plastered levels of cistshaped pits point to a multiple renovations process similar to Norşun Tepe (Hauptmann 1979: Pl. 28:2). In Trench H 12 North, a reddish brown floor and a lower white floor, two walls of a building and storage pits represent the latest level. The earlier pits are rectangular and the later pits are oval in form. Two walls running parallel to each other are built of mud bricks containing lime and plaster material. A lower level is represented by a south-southeast oriented wall and two storage units to its north. A clay floor represents the uppermost Chalcolithic level in Trench J 12 North (Ökse 2005: 783).

Discussion

The grit tempered pottery dominates the later levels (Fig 5-6). Common finds include: oval beakers, plates with thickened rims and grooved rims, spherical bodied bowls, hammerhead rims, beaded or everted rimmed carinated bowls, spherical jars without necks or with funnel-shaped, concave and cylindrical necks, as well as short anglerimmed globular jars. These assemblages are parallel to several large scale buildings at Kenantepe, dating to LC 4 (ca. 3360-3020 BC) (Creekmore 2007: 85-86, 91-95, figs. 7-12; Parker et al. 2008: 109; 2009: 96-97, 101; Ur 2010), Hacınebi B 1-2 (Middle Uruk, 3750-3500 BC) (Stein et al 1998; Pearce 2000: 115-121, fig.12), Zeytinlibahçe LC 4 (Frangipane 2007: 127, fig. 8.6), Tell al-‘Abr 1 (Yamazaki 1999, 8990, fig. 4: 4-5, 7, 10), Tell Kosak Shamali 4-1 (Koizumi and Sudo 2001: 120-135), Hammam et-Turkman V (36003200 BC) (Akkermans 1988a: 288, 321, Pl. 99-108) and Tell es Sweyhat period III (Wilkinson 2004: 85-86). The LC 4 period (ca. 3600-3300 BC) is represented by the Uruk expansion throughout northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia by sites such as the Tell Brak ‘Eye Temple’ (Oates and Oates 2002), Tell Leilan IV (Schwartz 1988: 129), Gawra VIII and Amuq F. The Uruk-EBA IA transition is dated to LC 5 (ca. 33003000 BC) and Early Jezire 0 (ca. 3250/3000-2900 BC). Aşağı Salat Level 7 (Şenyurt 2004: 659), the lowest step of Operation E at Ziyarettepe (Matney and Rainville 2005: 23) and Levels 4-5 of Kenantepe (ca. 3360-3020 BC) (Creekmore 2007: 78, 83-84; Parker et al. 2008: 101, 112, 167) contain only grit-tempered sherds (Parker et al. 2009: 96-97, 101) similar to the latest floors of Salat Tepe and to the Late Uruk assemblages of Hassek Höyük 5 (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 154, 162), Arslantepe VIA (3400-3000 BC) (Frangipane 1993: 156-160; Frangipane 2000: 444-447, 451), Kurban Höyük VIA, Tilbeshar IIIA1 (3100-2900 BC) (Kepinski 2007: 152-53), Tilbes X (31002900 BC) (Fuensanta 2007: tab 9.1), Zeytinlibahçe B8 (Frangipane 2007: 131-36; 2010: 121, fig. 9), Tell Brak CH 9-12, Tell Leilan IV (Schwartz and Weiss 1992: fig. 3)

The Chalcolithic chronology of northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia is synchronized in several studies (Mellink 1992: tab. 2-3; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: fig. 4.2, 5.2, 6.3; Ur 2010, tab. 1). The Halaf-Ubaid Transition represented by the lowest architectural levels at Salat Tepe is roughly dated to ca. 5400-5200 BC and the Early Ubaid Period to the last two centuries of the 6th and the early 5th millennium BC (Akkermans et al. 2006: tab. 1.1; Champbell 2007). The Late Ubaid period (Ubaid 3-4) or the Jezire LC 1 (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: fig. 6.3; Rothman 2004: tab. 1; Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 147162) dating to the late 5th millennium BC are represented at Salat Tepe by earlier and later levels separated by thick ash deposits. The Early Ubaid and Halaf pottery is registered at only two sites 5km to the north and 3km to the south of Salat Tepe. In the construction area of the Ilısu Dam, the Halaf pottery is registered only at one, and the Ubaid at three small sites (Fig. 1) (Torpil 2009: 76, fig. 33; Ökse et al. 2010b). This evidence indicates the existence of an open settlement pattern of small village communities in both areas, similar to the settlement systems in northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The Late Chalcolithic period is represented by earlier and later levels separated by thick ash deposits at Salat Tepe. The chaff tempered wares predominate in earlier levels, as is characteristic of the early 4th millennium BC contexts (LC 2-3), and grit tempered wares in the later levels of late 4th millennium BC (LC 4-5) (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: fig. 6.3; Ur 2010, tab. 1). In the vicinity of Salat Tepe, this pottery is registered at five sites including Aşağı Salat and Gre Dimse, located ca. 3-5km apart; likewise, a considerable increase in the number of settlements (12 sites) is determined in the construction area of the Ilısu Dam (Torpil 2009: 76; Ökse et al. 2010b) (Fig. 1), both reflecting the existence of selfcontained farming communities, as has been frequently suggested (Wilkinson 1993: 560-565; 1994: 493, 497; Hodder and Orton 1976: 233, fig. 7.4; Wagstaff 1985: 52, fig. 4.2). The differently sized settlements indicate the development of a settlement hierarchy in the Upper Tigris region, similar to the Euphrates region (Algaze 1993; Frangipane 2001). Research within the reservoir area of the Ilısu Dam is on-going. A reliable chronological sequence and a complete analysis of the settlement pattern throughout the Chalcolithic period are projects for the future. Bibliography Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (1988a) The Period IV Pottery, The Period V Pottery. IN: M. Van Loon, ed., Hammam 136

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, LXIII. Leiden: Brill, 287-349. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (1988b) An Updated Chronology of the Northern ‘Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic Periods in Syria: New Evidence From Tell Hammam et-Turkman, Iraq 50: 109-136. Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and G. M. Schwartz (2003) The Archaeology of Syria from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 BC), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Akkermans, P. M. M. G., R. Cappers, C. Cavallo, O. Nieuwenhuyse, B. Nilhamm and I. N. Otte (2006) Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad, American Journal of Archaeology 110/1: 123-156. Algaze, G., (1993) The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Algaze, G., M. A. Evins, M. L. Ingraham, L. Marfoe and K. A. Yener (1990) Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Oriental Institute Publications 110. Chicago, The University of Chicago. Algaze, G., R. Breuninger and J. Knudstad (1994) The Tigris-Euprates Archaeological Reconssissance Project: Final report of the Birecik and Carchemish Dam survey areas, Anatolica 20: 1-96 Balossi Restelli, F. (2006) The Local Late Chalcolithic (LC3) Occupation at Zeytinli Bahçe (Birecik, ŞanliUrfa): the Ceramic Production. Anatolian Studies 56: 17-46. Baghdo, Abd El-Masih H., J. Becker, K. Deckers, G. ElsenNovák, M. Fakhru, S. Abdel Ghafour, B. Hemeier, S. Hörner, C. Hübner, E. Katzy, L. Martin, M. Novák, W. Orthmann, M. Reutemann, S. Riehl, U. Sievertsen, B. Wolf (2009) Zusammenfassung und Ausblick, IN: Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell Halaf 2006 und 2007, Vorbericht über Die 1. und 2. Syrisch-Deutsche Grabungskampagne, Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 4, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 119-121. Bernbeck, R., S. Pollock and C. Coursey (1999) The Halaf Settlement at Kazane Höyük. Perliminary report on the 1996 and 1997 Seasons. Anatolica 25: 109-147. Bernbeck, R., S. Costello and N. İnal (2004) Excavations at Yenice Yanı 2002, 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara: 117-126 Braidwood, R. J. and L. S. Braidwood (1960) Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, vol. I, The Earlier Assemblages. Phases A-J. Oriental Institute Publications 61. Chicago: the Oriental Institute Press. Brandt, R. W. (1978) The Chalcolithic Pottery, IN: M. N. van Loon (Ed.), Korucutepe 2, 57-60, Amsterdam–New York–Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company. Campbell, S. (2007) Rethinking Halaf Chronologies, The University of Manchester, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures. Available from: Campbell, S., E. Carter, E. Healey, S. Anderson, A. Kennedy and S. Whitcher (1999) Emerging Complexity on the Kahramanmaraş Plain, Turkey: the Domuztepe Project, 1995-1997. American Journal of Archaeology 103: 395-418. Creekmore, A. (2007) The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Summary and Synthesis of the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Remains from the First Three Seasons at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 33: 75-128. Egami, N. (1959) Telul Eth Thalathat, The Excavations of Tell II, 1956-1957, Vol. I, Tokyo, The Yamakawa Publishing. Esin, U. (1983) Zur Datierung der Vorgeschichtlichen Schichten von Değirmentepe bei Malatya in der Östlichen Türkei, IN: R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Altertumskunde Kleinasiens, 175190, Mainz: Zabern. Frangipane, M. (1993) Local Components in the Development of Centralized Societies in Syro-Anatolian Regions. IN: M. Frangipane et al., eds., Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, 133-161. Frangipane, M. (2000) The Late Chalcolithic/EB I Sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and Cultural Remarks from a Frontier Site, IN: C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (eds.), 439-471, Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L’Euphrate aux Ive-IIIe Milleniaires Paris: de Boccard. Frangipane, M., (2001) The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the Beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC, TÜBA-AR 4: 1-24. Frangipane, M. (2007) Establishment of a Middle/ Upper Euphrates Early Bronze I culture from the fragmentation of the Uruk world. New Data from Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük (Urfa, Turkey). IN: E. Peltenburg, ed., Euphrates Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 122141. Levant Supplementary Series 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Frangipane, M. (2010) Late Chalcolithic Developments and the Transition to EB I in the Turkish Middle Euphrates Valley, as seen from the Excavations at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük (Urfa), IN: P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti, eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol 2. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 186-203. Fuensanta, J. G. (2007) The Tilbes Project (Birecik Dam, Turkish Euphrates): the Early Bronze evidence. IN: E. Peltenburg, ed., Euphrates Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 142151. Levant Supplementary Series 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

137

SOMA 2010 Fukai, S., K. Horiuchi and T. Matsutani (1970) Telul eth Thalathat, The Excavations of Tell II (The Third Season 1964). Tokyo, The Institute of Oriental Culture, The University of Tokyo. Gut, R. V. (1995) Das Praehistorische Ninive, Mainz: Zabern. Gülçur, S. (2000) Norşuntepe: Die Chalkolithische Keramik (Elazığ/ Ostanatolien), in: C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L’Euphrate aux Ive-IIIe Milleniaires, 375-418. Paris, Boccard. Gürdil, B. (2005) Architecture and Social Complexity in the Late Ubaid Period: A Study of the Built Environment of Değirmentepe in East Anatolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, UMI, Los Angeles. Hauptmann, H. (1976) Ausgrabungen auf dem Norşun Tepe, 1972, Keban Project 1972, 41-70, Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Hauptmann, H. (1979) Ausgrabungen auf dem Norşun Tepe, 1973, Keban Project 1973, 43-60, Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Hauptmann, H. (1982) Ausgrabungen auf dem Norşun Tepe, 1974, Keban Project 1974-75, 15-40, Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Helwing, B. (2000) Regional Variation in the Composition of Late Chalcolithic Pottery Assemblages, IN: C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, eds., Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L’Euphrate aux Ive-IIIe Milleniaires, 145-164, Paris: de Boccard. Henrickson, E. F. and I. Thuesen (1989) Concluding Summary, IN: E. F. Henrickson and I. Thuesen, eds., Upon this Foundation. The Ubaid Reconsidered, Copenhagen, The University of Copenhagen, 457-459. Hodder, I. R. and C. Orton (1976) Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoh, M. R. (1981) Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31: 31-82 Jasim, S. A. (1985) The Ubaid Period in Iraq: Recent Excavations in the Hamrin Region. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford: B.A.R. Jesus, J. G. and P. Charvar (2002) Halafians and Ubaidians: The Case of Tilbes Höyük in Birecik, Southeastern Turkey, IN: W. H. van Soldt, R. Kalvelagen and D. Katz, eds., Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 123-133. Kepinski, C. (2007) Dynamics, diagnostic criteria and settlement patterns in the Carchemish area during the Early Bronze Age period. IN E. Peltenburg, ed., Euphrates Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 152-63. Levant Supplementary Series 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Koizumi, T. (1993) Ubaid Pottery from Kashkashok II: Examination of Tomb and Pottery Sequences, Al Rafidan 17: 29-56. Koizumi, T. (1996) Chronology of Ubaid Tombs from Kashkashok II: Typology and Chronology, Al Rafidan 14: 19-67.

Koizumi, T. and H. Sudo (2001) The Stratigraphy and Architectures of Sector B of Tell Kosak Shamali, IN: Y. Nishiaki and T. Matsutani, eds., Tell Kosak Shamali: The Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria, vol. I: Chalcolithic Architecture and the Earlier Prehistoric Remains. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo, Yoshida Printing Inc., Oxbow Books, 115-152. Marro, C., A. Tibet and R. Ergeç (1998) Fouilles de Sauvetage de Horum Höyük (Province de Gaziantep): Troisime Rapport Preliminaire, Anatolia Antiqua VII: 285-307 Matney, T. and L. Rainville, eds. 2005. Archaeological investigations at Ziyarettepe 2003-2004. Anatolica 31: 153-88. Mazzoni, S. (2000) From the Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in North-West Syria: Anatolian Contact and Regional Perspective, IN: C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, eds., Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L’Euphrate aux Ive-IIIe Milleniaires, Paris, de Boccard, 97-114. Mellink, M. J. (1992) Anatolia. IN: R. W. Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 171-220. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Merpert, N. Y. and R. M. Munchaev (1993) Yarım Tepe III: The Ubaid Levels, IN: N. Yoffee and J. J. Clark, eds., Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization. Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, 225240, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Nieuwenhuyse, O. (1997) Following the Earliest Halaf: Same Later Halaf Pottery from Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, Anatolica 23: 227-242. Nishiaki, Y. (1999) Tell Kosak Shamali: Preliminary Report of the Excavations (1994-1997). IN: G. Del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós, eds., Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, 7182. Barcelona, Editorial Ausa. Nishiaki, Y. (2001) Radiocarbon Dates and the Absolute Chronology of Tell Kosak Shamali, IN: Y. Nishiaki and T. Matsutani, eds., Tell Kosak Shamali: The Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria, vol. I: Chalcolithic Architecture and the Earlier Prehistoric Remains. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo, Yoshida Printing Inc., Oxbow Books, 153-163. Oates, J. (1983) Ubaid Mesopotamia Reconsidered, IN: Young, T., P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen, eds., The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, 251-281, Chicago, The Oriental Institute Press. Oates, J. (1986) Tell Brak: The Uruk/Early Dynastic Sequence, IN: U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig, eds., Gamdat Nasr, Period or Regional Style? 245-273, Wiesbaden, Harrasowitz. Oates, J. and D. Oates (1994) Tell Brak: A Stratigraphic Summary, 1976-1993. Iraq, 56, 167-175. Oates, J. and D. Oates (2002) The Reattribution of Middle Uruk Materials at Brak. IN: E. Ehrenberg, ed., Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 145–154.

138

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region Ozan, A. (2009) Siirt-Botan Vadisinde Ubaid Dönemi, IN: H. Sağlamtimur et al., eds., Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu. A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 407-425. Ökse, A. T. (2004) 2001 Excavations at Salat Tepe, IN: N. Tuna et al., eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2001, 603-640, Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Ökse, A. T. (2005) Salat Tepe Kazılarının Stratigrafik Sonuçları, Belleten LXIX/256: 781-800. Ökse, A. T. and A. O. Alp (2002) 2000 Excavations at Salat Tepe, IN: N. Tuna and J. Velibeyoğlu, eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000, 645670, Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Ökse, A. T. and A. Görmüş (2006) Excavations at Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region: Stratigraphical Sequence and Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Seasons, Akkadica 127: 119-149 Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and N. İnal (2007) Ilısu Barajı - Salat Tepe 2005 Kazısı, IN: 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 51-64. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and M. A. Bilici (2009) Ilısu Barajı - Salat Tepe 2007 Kazısı, IN: 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. 19-32, Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and M. A. Bilici (2010a) Ilısu Barajı - Salat Tepe 2008 Kazısı, IN: 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 317-330, Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. Ökse, A. T., A. Görmüş and E. Atay (2010b) Ilısu Barajı İnşaat Sahası 2008 Yüzey Araştırması. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/1, 333-349. Özgen E., B. Helwing and A. Engin (1999) Oylum Höyük 1997-1998. Die Spätchalcolithische Siedlung auf der Westterrasse, Anatolica Antiqua 7: 19-67 Parker, J. B. and A. Creekmore (2002). The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project: A Final Report from the 1999 Field Season, Anatolian Studies 52: 19-74. Parker, J. B. and L. Swartz Dodd (2005) The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2002 Field Season, Anatolica 31: 69-110. Parker B. J., l. Dodd, A. Creekmore, E. Healey and C. Painter (2006) The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP). A Preliminary Report from the 2003 and 2004 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe, Anatolica 32: 72-151. Parker B. J., C. P. Foster, J. Henecke, M. Hopwood, D. Hopwood, A. Creekmore, A. Demirergi and M. Eppihimer (2008) Preliminary Report from the 2005 and 2006 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe, Anatolica 34: 103-176. Parker, B. J., C. P. Foster, K. Nicoll, J. R. Kennedy, P. Graham, A. Smith, D. E. Hopwood, M. Hopwood, K. Butler, E. Healey, M. B. Uzel and R. Jensen (2009)

The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Perliminary Report from the 2007 and 2008 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 35: 85152. Pearce, J. (2000) The Late Chalcolithic Sequence at Hacınebi Tepe, Turkey. IN: C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, eds., Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millenaires, 115-144. Paris, De Boccard. Pollock, S. and C. Coursey (1995) Ceramics from Hacınebi Tepe: Chronology and Connections, Anatolica 21: 101-141 Porada, E. et al. (1992) The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000-1600 BC, IN: R. W. Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Vol. I-II, 77-121, 90-124, Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press. Rothman, M. S. (2004). Studying the Development of Complex Society: Mesopotamia in the Late Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC. Journal of Archaeologiacal Science 12/1: 75-119. Rothman, M. S. and M. J. Blackman (2003) Late Fifth and Early Fourth Millennium Exchange Systems in Northern Mesopotamia: Chemical Characterization of Spring and Impressed Wares. Al-Rafidan 24: 1-24. Sağlamtimur, H. and A. Ozan (2008) Siirt-Türbe Höyük Kazısı, Ön Rapor, Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi X (2007/2): 1-32. Sagona, A. and P. Zimansky (2009) Ancient Turkey. Routledge World Archaeology. London and New York, Routledge. Schmidt, H. (1943) Tell Halaf I: Die Prähistorischen Funde. Berlin: Gruyter. Schwartz, G. M. (1988) A Ceramic Chronology From Tell Leilan, Operation I. New Haven, Yale University Press. Schwartz, G. M. and H. Weiss (1992) Syria, ca. 10.0002000 BC. IN: R. W. Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology I, 221-43. Chicago: University of Chicago. Speiser, E. A. (1935) Excavations at Tepe Gawra I. Baltimore: University of Pennsylvania, University Museum. Stein, G., R. Bernbeck, C. Coursey, A. McMahon, N. Miller, A. Mısır, J. Nicola, H. Pittman, S. Pollock, H. Wright (1996) Uruk Colonies and Mesopotamian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-3 Excavations at Hacınebi, Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology 100: 205-260. Stein, G., C. Edens, J. Pearce Edens, K. Boden, N. Laneri, H. Özbal, B. Earl, M. Adriaens, and H. Pittman (1998) Southeast Anatolia Before the Uruk Expansion: Preliminary Report on the 1997 Excavations at Hacınebi, Turkey, Anatolica 24: 143-193. Şenyurt, S. Y. (2004) Aşağı Salat 2001 Yılı Kazısı, 2001 Excavations at Aşağı Salat. IN: N. Tuna et al., eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2001, 641-668. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University.

139

SOMA 2010 Thissen, L. C. (1985) The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery From Hayaz Höyük, Anatolica 12: 75-130. Tobler, A. J. (1950) Excavations at Tepe Gawra, 2. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Torpil, S. (2009) Kalkolitik Çağ. IN: A. T. Ökse et al., Ilısu Barajı İnşaat sahası Yüzey Araştırmasında Belirlenen Arkeolojik Alanlar, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi 7, 71-94. Trentin, M. G. (1993) The Early Reserved Slip Wares Horizon of the Upper Euphrates Basin and Western Syria. IN: M. Frangipane et al., eds., Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Universita di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma, Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, 177-199. Trufelli, F. (1994) Standardisation, Mass Production and Potter’s Marks in the Late Chalcolithic Pottery of Arslantepe (Malatya), Origini 18: 245-289 Ur, J. A. (2010) “Cycles of Civilization in Northern Mesopotamia, 4400–2000 BC”, Journal of Archaeological Research. DOI-10.1007/s10814-0109041-y. Available from: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn3:HUL.InstRepos:3210514 & http://www.springerlink. com/content/u423066748kl93v5

Wagstaff, J. M. (1985) The Evolution of Middle Eastern Landscapes: An Outline to A.D. 1840. London: Croom Helm. Watson, P. J. and S. A. Le Blanc (1990) Girikihaciyan: A Halafian Site in Southeastern Turkey. Monograph 33. California: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Wilkinson, T. J. (1990) Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, I: Settlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and in the Lower Karababa Basin. Oriental Institute Publications 109, Chicago, The Oriental Institute. Wilkinson, T. J. (1993) Linear Hollows in the Jazira, Upper Mesopotamia. Antiquity 67: 548-562. Wilkinson, T. J. (2004) On the Margin of the Euphrates. Settlement and Land Use at Tell es-Sweyhat and in the Upper Lake Assad Area, Syria. Oriental Institute Publications 124, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Woolley, C. L. (1934) The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish, Iraq 1: 146-162. Yamazaki, Y. (1999) Excavations at Tell Al-‘Abr. IN: G. Del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós, eds., Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, 83-96. Barcelona, Editorial Ausa.

140

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region

Fig. 1. Sites in the Upper Tigris Region, the north-south-section of Salat Tepe.

141

SOMA 2010

Fig. 2. Chalcolithic architecture (Drawing: G. Kaynak, A. Köksoy, O. Mercan)

142

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region

Fig. 3. Late Halaf–Early Ubaid pottery (Drawing: G. Kaynak) 143

SOMA 2010

Fig. 4. Late Ubaid pottery (Drawing: G. Kaynak) 144

Tuba Okse and Ahmet Gormuş: Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region

Fig. 5. Late Chalcolithic pottery (Drawing: G. Kaynak) 145

SOMA 2010

Fig. 6. Table of stratigraphic sequence and intensity of pottery groups at Salat Tepe

146

Six anchorages west of Antalya – Turkey Hakan Oniz

Antalya is an important tourist destination in southern Turkey. Along the coastline of this city there are many archaeological traces of an uninterrupted history from earliest man to the present. This 640km coastal strip on the Mediterranean includes the ancient regions of Cilicia to the east, Lycia to the west, and Pamphylia in the middle. This region has plentiful natural harbours and anchorages for mariners, but there are also strong currents, sudden storms, invisible shallows and other hazards for the seaman, ancient and modern along, the seaway. The coastline is not the same as it was thousands of years ago and these geographical differences are known to include sea-level changes and vertical land movements (Anzidei et al. 2011: 13). The rivers of Antalya deposit sediments around their mouths as they open to the sea. The rough waves of the Mediterranean carry and deposit sediments near the shoreline as well. These factors along the coast of Antalya have affected the numbers of remains from prehistoric ages found during these researches. Within this region, underwater explorations carried out between the 2009–2010 led to the discovery of archaeological remains including harbours, anchorages and shipwrecks. Simultaneously, numerous anchors of all kinds, mooring stones, lead stocks of wooden anchors and several kinds of iron anchors and stone fishing sinkers were found. During this project one of the main goals was to try and locate ancient harbours and anchorages, because they can provide much new knowledge of seamanship and past trade contacts. Many harbours and anchorages which were found during the researches have the potential to help us understand maritime interactions, history, and the many problems of seamanship in the Eastern Mediterranean. Anchors are important indicators of ancient harbours and anchorages of the past. They are an essential part of the tackle of all water craft from primitive rafts to modern ships. Basic tied stones, and later one-holed stone anchors, were among the first anchors devised by man. All types of ancient anchors were classified by Frost (1963; 1973), Kapitan (1984), Haldane (1990) and others (McCaslin 1980; Raban 1999). They may be classified into three main categories according to the major construction materials; stone, wood, and iron. Anchors belonging to any one of the three categories may include other materials. For example, stone anchors may have wooden pegs inserted in them and wooden anchors may have parts of lead. Their use extends over a large timespan starting from the early Bronze Age to modern times. Anchors are common finds in the harbours and anchorages in Mediterranean (Galili et al. 1994; 1986; 1993; Galili and Raveh 1988; Galili 1985; Oniz and Zafer

2005: 111-113; Raban 2000: 260-263; Raban 1990: 299, 300; Wachsmann 1998: 290). Anchorage 1 An important anchorage was identified between Adrasan and Cape Gelidonya during our research. In this area, at least two shipwrecks, along with eight iron anchors, three three-holed stone anchors, one single holed stone anchor and amphorae from different periods were found. This anchorage offered a safe haven for boats during northwest storms. However, the north and south entrances of the anchorage have dangerous shallows that cannot be seen from the surface. The crew of the sunken ships probably could not see these shallows during bad weather and rough sea conditions. Anchorages 2, 3, 4 Three sheltered anchorages have been found in the Kumluca region. The first one was found between the west of Cape Gelidonya and the village of Karaoz; it is still being used by fishermen today. A shipwreck, iron and stone anchors and different types of amphorae were found in the vicinity of this harbour. Another anchorage named ‘Papaz Iskelesi’ is located between the town of Mavikent and Karaoz in the same region. This harbour is sheltered from western winds. Stone and iron anchors and other remains from different periods, found in this harbour show that this site was used as a harbour since the Bronze Age. The last one is an unassuming, small natural harbour to the north-west of the Melannippe cape between Gelidonya cape and Karaoz. On the coast of the cove is a church of the Byzantine era and next to it is a small Byzantine settlement called Melannippe. Fishing-net weights, amphora fragments, and stone anchors which were found in this harbour show that it was a small fishing harbour. Anchorage 5 Many important remains were also found around Guvercin Island, between Finike and Demre on the Antalya coast. Iron anchors, a lead part of a wooden anchor, stone anchors and at least three shipwrecks dating from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine era were detected in that location. In this region, the bottom is sandy; hence it is possible to find more artefacts underneath the sandy deposit. The sea between the coast and the island is completely sheltered from south and north winds and partly sheltered from east and west winds. However sudden currents can run between the land and the island during storms and it is almost impossible to stay safe there. This factor probably surprised many seamen who could not avoid serious difficulties. 147

SOMA 2010 Anchorages 6 ‘Andrea Doria’ is the name of an anchorage between the towns of Finike and Demre in Antalya. At the entrance of this natural harbour was found a shipwreck loaded with amphorae, stone and iron anchors and other remains. This location is open to eastern winds and provided some safety from westerly storms for ships travelling between west and east. At the mouth of the anchorage, the currents are strong during high winds but inside there is almost no current. Studies for the localization and dating of the remains of these anchorages were suggested in the present author’s doctoral thesis. There are also many other anchorages to the east, and several ancient harbours to the east and west were found during the research project. These anchorages and harbours and the remains from the harbours and anchorages will be the subject of other articles when their studies are completed. More experiments and analyses are needed and this research on will continue in the coming years.

References Anzidei, M., Antonioli, F., Benini, A., Lambeck, K., Sivan, D., Serpelloni, E., Stocchi, P. (2011) Sea level change and vertical land movements since the last two millennia along the coasts of southwestern Turkey and Israel. Quaternary International. 232: Issues 1-2: 1320 Frost, H., (1963) From rope to chain. On the development of anchors in the Mediterranean. Mariner’s Mirror, 49: 1–20. Frost, H. (1973) Anchors, the potsherds of marine archaeology: on the recording of pierced stones from the Mediterranean. In: D. Blackman (Ed.), Marine Archaeology, Colston Papers, XXIII, 397–409. London

Galili, E., Dahari, U., Sharvit, J. (1993) Underwater Surveys and Rescue Excavations along the Israel Coast. IJNA, 22.1: 61-77 Galili, E., Sharvit, J., Artzy, M. (1994) Reconsidering Byblian and Egyptian stone anchors using numeral methods: new finds from the Israeli coast. IJNA 23.2: 93-107. Galili, E., Raveh, K. (1988) Stone Anchors with Carvings from the Sea off Megadim, Israel. Sefunim. The Maritime Museum, Haifa. VII: 41-47. Galili, E., Smueli, N., Artzy, M. (1986) Bronze Age ship’s cargo of copper and tin. IJNA 15.1: 25-37. Galili, E., (1985) A group of stone anchors from NeweYam. IJNA, 14. 2:143- 153. Haldane, D. (1990) Anchors of Antiquity. Biblical Archaeologist, 53.1: 19-24. Kapitan, G. (1984) Ancient Anchors, Technology and Classification. IJNA, 13.1: 33-44 McCaslin, D. E. (1980) Stone Anchors in Antiquity: Coastal Settlements and maritime Trade-routes in Eastern Mediterranean ca. 1600–1050 B.C. SIMA, vol. LXI. Goteborg. Oniz, H., Zafer, N. (2006) KKTC Karpaz Yarımadası, Kaleburnu/Kral Tepesi Kıyıları Sualtı Araştırması. SBT 2006 Proceedings. Istanbul. Galatasaray University Press. 111-114 Raban, A. (2000) Three hole composite stone anchors from a medieval context at Caesarea Maritima, Israel. IJNA, 29.2: 260-277. Raban, A. (1999) The innovation of the composite anchor and the naval warfare of the Late Bronze Age. In H. Tzalas (Ed.), Tropis V. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Nauplia, Greece, 26–28 August 1993, 337. Athens (Abstract). Raban, A. (1990) Medieval anchors from the Red Sea. IJNA, 19: 299–306. Waschsmann, S., (1998) Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. Chatham Publishing. London.

148

Hakan Oniz: Six anchorages west of Antalya – Turkey

Fig. 1. Six anchorages to the west of Antalya

Fig. 2. Anchorage 1: between Cape Gelidonya and Adrasan

149

SOMA 2010

Fig. 3. Anchorages 2, 3 and 4: Cape Gelidonya

150

d

Fig. 4. Anchorage 5: Finike – Guvercin Islan

Hakan Oniz: Six anchorages west of Antalya – Turkey

Fig. 5. Anchorage 6: Finike, Andre Doria Bay

151

152

Depictions of ships on Attic black-and red-Figured vases: some peculiarities Anna Petrakova

The State Hermitage Museum, Department of Classical Antiquities, St. Petersburg, Russia

Depictions of the sea and everything connected to it in ancient Greek and Roman art is a well-explored subject and since the end of the 19th century no decade has passed without an article, monograph or exhibition dedicated to this theme or one of its aspects appearing (Delivorrias et al. 1987; Morrison and Coates 1990: 378-380; Wallinga 1993; Samara-Kauffmann et al. 2008: 173; Gorskaya et al. 2009: 126-131). Practical aspects of navigation and shipbuilding have been extensively explored in publications by J. Morrison and collaborators (Morrison and Williams 1968; Morrison and Coates 1990), who collected many items of ancient Greek arts and crafts to illustrate their ideas and to make models of different kinds of ships. But I make no apology for revisiting this fascinating subject, contributing within the context of the question of ‘pictorial narrative’ (Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999) and ‘pictorial rhetoric’ of ancient Greek vase-painting. Painted vases of feasts and metaphorical comparisons of sea/wine, symposiast/sailor etc., have been quite well explored (Lissarrague 2008) and will not be touched on here. My interest in the subject was initiated by some phrases in a book by L. Taruashvili, who, making analysis of ancient written sources, writes: ‘the movement of a ship in ancient poetry is transmitted with the words, which create an image of something heavy, balanced, zealously wearing down resistance’, whereas ‘the image of a ship “flying like a bird” used to be avoided in the texts’ (Taruashvili 1998: 258-262). Although this statement seems to be valid, in some black-figure vasepaintings we find not only swiftly moving oared ships, but also ships under sail, as if ‘flying’ over the surface of the water; examples include well-known drinking cups i.e. Louvre F 123 (CVA Louvre 10: pl. 95.2-3.7-10.12, 96.1.4) and Munich 2044 (CVA München 13: taf. 1.1-2, 2.1-3, 3.12). Thus we see that in addition to the many differences in the depiction of some myths in the written and drawn sources, there are also differences between the ‘images’ of certain non-mythological subjects in descriptive and pictorial traditions. The development of ‘visual narrative’ in Greek applied arts has its own long history, for which, as John Boardman notes, ‘Homer is not responsible’ (Boardman 1998: 267). The ‘image’ of the sea and ships and the difference between these ‘images’ in different periods of vase-painting is the subject matter of this paper. As will be shown later, the majority of depictions of ships in Attic black-figure vase-painting forms a group (mainly on dinoi, drinking-cups and kraters) of only rowing/sailing ships with no mythological or symbolic connotations. For the moment we can perceive them as just ships, as representations of everyday life, on vase-paintings, chairs, coaches, fountains, columns, etc., and as such we can

discuss them in the same way as other representations on vase-paintings, such as furniture, fashion, or architecture. But as well as just the historical aspect, which allows us to make reconstructions of real ships on the basis of the drawings of them on vases, we can talk about an ‘artistic’ dimension, with such questions as: ‘how did painters depict a ship?’ or ‘what was the “essence” of the image of a ship for them?’, and do this in the same way as we think about ‘an image of a warrior’ or ‘an image of a housewife’ in vase-painting. Thinking of real situations we can imagine many subjects connected to ships. For example, it is possible to depict the process of ship construction, and we know at least one case where special attention was paid to this subject in mythology. It is also possible to depict a ship in harbor, or a ship featured in a specific mythological story, to depict how a ship sank or was burned, or destroyed, etc. As far as the majority of preserved depictions of ships in Athenian black-figure vase-painting is not connected with myths (or their connection is not obvious), instead of attempts to bind somehow sailing ships to mythological sea travel, we would like to concentrate our attention to an exploration of the ‘rhetorical image’ of the ship and sea travel within Athenian black-figure vase-painting. Since Geometric times, vases, which are considered to be an essential part of all the myriad examples of the arts/ crafts of the period, were painted by Greeks who were skilled enough in choosing a limited number of features of an object to represent it to the viewer in a simple, but quite recognizable, way (such as stylized depictions of a warrior as simply a head, shield, two spears and two legs, or a chariot as a cart with two wheels in profile). However we have neither written evidence of the intentions of vasepainters, nor information on the expectations of viewers. Archaic Greek art is already detailed enough to show many elements of an object and to indicate the location of the action (Webster 1939). On the other hand the treatment is still quite ‘formal’, ‘conventional’ and ‘symbolic’ to really portray all the details of human beings, things, or landscape. Thus the vase-painter had to choose some details while disregarding them. What interests us is what details they chose and what they disregarded when depicting the sea, ships and sea-travels, and, if possible, why. It is possible to consult some preserved written sources: a few belong to the archaic period, and more to the earlier or later periods. In some of them ships are mentioned or even described. All these sources have been analyzed by historians in comparison with the depictions of ships so as to make reconstructions as detailed as possible 153

SOMA 2010 (Morrison and Williams 1968; Morrison and Coates 1990). In addition, texts of more or less the same time as the black-figure vases themselves allow us to make a comparison of an ‘image’ of a ship and the sea in pictorial and descriptive ‘texts’ (by means of semiology we may refer to vase drawings as ‘texts’; they are also a type of ‘communication’ process). Ships and Geometric, Archaic and Classical vasepainting: statistical analysis The sea and all things connected to it (sea-creatures, ships, sea-gods, etc.) featured as vase-painting themes from Geometric times, and painted pottery, being made in restricted locations in the Mediterranean, had to travel long distances over the sea to reach its future owners, who were not only fishing or trading, but also had to participate in sea-battles and travel far away, looking for better lands in Asia Minor, the Black Sea, Italy, Sicily… The sea as a ‘theme’ therefore was a very important subject in Greek art, but, when we look at the artefacts we see depictions of Poseidon, Nereids, Triton and other human (or nonhuman) personifications of the sea and its qualities, rather than depictions of the sea itself as a definite form that the ships can navigate on. Moreover, the number of preserved vases showing depictions of ships differs much in Geometric, Archaic and Classical vase-painting. There are several vases with ships and sea-travels known from the 8th and the 7th centuries BC, while in the 6th century BC, especially in the second half, their quantity increases to more than 110 preserved (to this author’s knowledge), but after 490-480 BC depictions of ships and the sea are rarer, and connected only with specific mythological stories. Painted vases in Archaic and Classical Athens are often referred to almost as ‘media’ products, sensitive to all the new trends of common life, including both important events in politics (Shapiro 1989) and minor developments in trades and crafts. In a recent article on textile imaging in Athens, S. Bundrick notes that images of money-pouches became popular in vase-painting when ‘coinage was still new’, and thus new and popular things became fashionable subjects for vase-painting (Bundrick 2009: 300). Thus multiple depictions of a certain subject on vases are linked to a wider interest in this subject in everyday life. If we consider that the increase in depictions of Heracles on Athenian black-figure vases has a political meaning and is connected with propaganda during the time of Peisistratos time, then we can also note the obvious increase in the volume of ship paintings on Athenian black-figure vases between 540-480 BC, an increase connected to the growing interest in ships at this period and in the notion of ‘propaganda’ and the general ‘popularization’ of all things to so with the sea. During the 9th-8th centuries BC all the Mediterranean basin, including the Black Sea region and Spain had been gradually involved in the colonial and merchant network. Greek geometric vases show an increasing interest in the subject and the peak of colonial, commercial and cultural

activity, definitely lasted until the 7th-6th centuries BC. It looks quite logical that the Athenian black-figure pottery of the second half of the 6th century BC and the beginning of the 5th century BC shows many depictions of both warships and merchant ships. On the other hand Themistokles’ decree, the Persian Wars, the number of naval battles in the Classical period and Athenian supremacy on the sea is in contradiction to the data, given us by red-figure vases – there are rather few (in comparison to more than 110 blackfigure) examples of depictions of ships, and all of them are connected only with mythological subjects. Probably there was no further need for propaganda/popularization of ships in Classical times, because since the late Archaic period the need for them and the positive image of the sea, ships and sea-travel were obvious to everybody. Thus, the analysis of statistics of ship depictions in geometric, archaic and classical painted pottery demonstrates different percentages of depictions of the sea and ships in these periods, which is not logically connected with the role of the sea and ships in these epochs (and thus forces us to suspect propaganda/popularization objectives for the depiction of ships in Athenian black-figure vasepainting). Furthermore, the way of depicting ships on geometric, archaic and classical vases also differs much, giving to the viewer/consumer different images of the sea, ships, and sea travel, which leads us to the next step of our research – to explore and compare these images within the context of daily life of the times and to understand whether there was a logical connection between reality and depictions of sea travel on vase-painting. Images of the sea, ships and sea travel on geometric, black- and red-figure pottery Although there is an opinion, that ‘les navires appartiennent aux sujets favoris de l’iconographie géométrique’ (SamaraKauffman et al. 2008: 28), there are not so many depictions of ships and sea travel on geometric pottery in comparison with archaic black-figure pottery. Nevertheless, geometric examples deserve special attention, because as it seems they give us an image of sea travel that is quite different to that given by Athenian black-figure pottery. One of the best known geometric ship vases is the krater from Ischia with a drawing of a shipwreck (Ischia, Museo Archeologico; 735-710 BC). This shows an image of a hostile sea, stressing the horror by depicting not only a capsized ship but also by shoals of huge and monstrous-looking fish (sometimes bigger than the human beings) chasing and eating the unhappy sailors. Although shipwrecks were detailed and vividly described in prose and poetry, and of course there were enough wrecks in the 9th-8th centuries BC to make them commonplace in ‘rhetoric tradition’, the Ischia krater is such a rare item among all the other examples of geometric pottery, that scholars even suggest some personal experience on the part of the artist. In 1987 E. Palaiologou wrote about the ‘vase-painter colonist, inspired by his own personal acquaintance with the sea’ (Delivorrias 1987: 162), and A.  Kalogeropoulou noticed that it was ‘not entirely clear whether the naval scenes on 154

Anna Petrakova: Depictions of Ships on Attic Black- and Red-Figured Vases the funerary vases of the Geometric period are specially connected with the sepulchral purpose of these vases or whether they portray incidents in the life of the deceased.’ (Delivorrias 1987: 164) It is difficult, in my opinion, to suspect any personal experience from the drawings on Greek geometric pottery, which worked rather with a certain repertoire of symbols, iconographic clichés, and ‘signs’, but we can talk about a certain ‘image’ of the sea in geometric art – perhaps an unwelcoming image. A shipwreck is depicted not only on the Ischia krater – there are further examples of geometric pottery, where a wreck is depicted or suspected (where the ceramics are poorly preserved), while on black-figure pottery (among the 110 examples known to me) there are no depictions of shipwrecks. I would say that the shipwreck was definitely one of the subjects of geometric vase painting, and whether it was connected somehow with the idea of a ship as a metaphor for a passage to underworld or not – we have to admit that it seems that the contemporary perception of ships and sea travel was rather pessimistic. As well as wrecks there are depictions of ships in the context of battle (Fittschen 1969; Ahlberg 1971), such as a skyphos from Eleusis (Ahlberg 1971: fig. 42-43), or moving warships, or ships within the context of a mythological story, on geometric pottery (Morrison and Williams 1968: pl. 1-7). Proto-attic and early archaic painted vases from different centres of pottery production give few examples of depictions of ships and the sea, and these drawings represent ships either in the context of battle, like the well-known Aristonothos krater, or in the context of a certain myth or mythological theme. But when we look at Athenian black-figure vases we see not only increasing instances of depictions of the sea and sea travels, but also a widening of the subjects and appearance not only of ships in the context of certain mythological episodes, but also just depictions of ships sailing on the sea. One of the most common examples is a dinos, drinking-cup, or krater showing four (rarer three or five) ships, followed by a dolphin or several dolphins. As early as 1978 a list of 25 dinoi (CVA Boston 2: 9-10) and 12 column-kraters (CVA Boston 2: 5) with ships was published by D. von Bothmer. Since 1978 more items have been added to the list and also we have to add drinking-cups, such as Louvre F 145 (CVA Louvre 9: pl. 88.2.4-6), Brussels A 3645 (L’Antiquite classique 58 (1989): pl. 9, fig. 13), Haifa 262 (Zemer 1998: 24), Cab. de Med. 322 (CVA Paris 2: pl. 52.3-6, 53.1-5, 54.1-2), etc. These ships are depicted in smooth, steady progress, the sea under them is shown as a wavy line with no sharpness in the form of the waves, and there is no hint of danger around the ships. If in geometric pottery we see often menacing creatures under the ships, or around them, or large birds (one of the symbols of death in geometric art), on black-figure vases, in the main, there are only dolphins, known as friendly creatures in Greek myths and later written sources (Herodotus, Hist. I, 23-24; Pausanias, Descr. of Greece I, 44). If a monster, such as on the Wurzburg dinos L 527 (CVA Wurzburg 1, pl. 44.1-6), is presented in black-figure drawings of sailing ships, it is more often than not more of a comic creation: e.g. the

octopus on the Wurzburg dinos is small in comparison to the large ships and will definitely not harm them. I would say that in this case the octopus simply emphasizes the safety and frequency of sea travel. If a siren is sitting on a rock, as on Louvre cup F 123 (CVA Louvre 10: Pl. 95.2-3.7-10.12, 96.1.4), she is just observing ships; she is represented as one of the indicators of marine life and wonders of sea travel, not as an aggressor and attacking the ship (as compared, for example, to the depiction on the well-known red-figure stamnos of the Odyssey and sirens in London (1843.11-3.31; CVA London 3: pl. 20.1A-D). The same contrasting imagery can be seen in the way ships themselves are depicted: in geometric art all of them (both merchant and warships) are large and bulky, while in Athenian black-figure vase-painting they are light and elegant (although of course in Archaic times both ‘long’ warships and ‘rounded’ merchant ships, which were large because of the loads they transported, were in use). In general, ships on Athenian black-figured pottery present a positive image, while on geometric pottery the connotations are darker and more negative. With reference to composition, Geometric drawings, for example on a fragment of Athenian krater Louvre A 517 (CVA Louvre 11: pl. 1.1-10), demonstrate in the main a general idea of ‘heaviness’. The painter concentrates on a single ship (depictions of two or three ships are rare). With Louvre A 517 four men are rowing, their bodies leaning back as they pull their oars. The ship is large and heavy and we can see how much attention the vase-painter paid to the details. There is no sail (unless we imagine that the handle of the krater is meant to represent one). The four large birds flying over the ship symbolize death, which is never far from the sailor at sea. The fish under the ship also indicate danger; they are not playful dolphins, but creatures of the deep. Changes in mood and interpretation of both fish and ships can be seen, for example, on black-figure oinochoa in London (London 1867.5-8.964; Morrison 1996: 184, fig. VI), where a large ship and its crew, with small white fish underneath it. As opposed to the monstrous creatures on geometric pottery, which move slowly and horizontally, indicating that they are denizens of the deep, the little white fish jumping near the ship on the London oinochoa pose no danger to the sailors; they merely illustrate sea life. Contrary to images of marine life in the Geometric tradition there are the depictions of 6th-century-BC ships, for example Louvre drinking cup F 123 (CVA Louvre 10: Pl. 95.2-3.7-10.12, 96.1.4). The ships depicted on the cup are slim and light; the rowers are not shown, only the head of a steersman on one side of the cup, and a steersman and officer on the other. The ship looks as if she is flying just because of the sail and the force of the wind, like a bird or a dolphin, with no evidence of muscular exertion. We see that the emphasis is made put on the ship as a heavy object crewed by many people, rather the emphasis is on the idea of movement, speed, lightness and grace. Although the sea is mostly depicted on Athenian black-figure vases with a 155

SOMA 2010 wavy incised line, the totally smooth surface of the sea on Louvre F 123 is a typical variant, stressing the gliding of the light ship over the surface. Even in alternatives to major vases, such as Louvre F 123 or the Exekian cup Munich 2044, the cruder depictions of ships on dinoi, kraters or cups show the same elements: the sail, the prow and the stern with decoration, the figure of the steersman. Very often in the depictions on Athenian black-figure vases the ships do not touch the sea’s surface completely, only in some places and adding more to the idea of lightness and fast movement. Near the ships on some Attic black-figured vases there are often dolphins to be seen, frolicking in the waves. They are also a metaphor for this lightness and the ability of ships to jump over the waves. (In all these depictions of non-mythological ships, the dolphins cannot be linked to Dionysius or Apollo, or other myths, but they can be regarded as symbols of the seas’ generosity and good nature.) As early as in the Odyssey, dolphins are called ‘sea dogs’ (Odyssey, XII, 96), from their habit of following ships like dogs following carts and riders. In Euripides’ Electra a dolphin, ‘following ships being enchanted by flute-playing’ is mentioned (435-438). However, at the same time as these ‘positive’ images of ships and sea-travel in black-figure Athenian vasepainting, many depictions of sea monsters can be found – such as those Heracles and other figures have to contend with (Ahlberg-Cornell 1984). These creatures are numerous and varied on Athenian black-figure vases of the second half of the 6th century BC. However we do not find these creatures depicted together with the sailing ships, which would be quite logical given the descriptions of sea travel in the literature – such as Anacharsis’ travels in the writings of Diogenes Laertius. Thus, the well-developed iconography of sea-monsters existed at the same time as the general iconography of marine activity. Drawings of ships on Athenian black- and red-figure vases: appearance, details, decoration Since the 3rd millennium BC Mediterranean ships were typically represented by a deck with sharp prow and raised stern (Cycladic ‘frying-pan’ Athens NM 4974; part of a handle of a jug Chaironeia 1793; etc.). The art of the 2nd millennium BC gives us more detailed examples of the depictions of a ship, including some with constructions on the deck (Santorini frescos; gold ring Athens NM 6209; fragment of clay amphora Volos K 2775 α-β; clay jar Skyros A 77; clay amphora Athens NM 6098; etc.). But only Geometric and Archaic Greek vase-painting provide enough details of ships to enable an understanding of the features intentionally stressed by the vase painters. Ships on geometric vases are drawn without details, but at the same time the deck is shown as if in a longitudinal section. The attention of the painter is concentrated on illustrating that the ship is well arranged and efficient. Athenian black-figure vase ships are never shown in longitudinal section. They are depicted in more realistic ways, in profile, rather low in the water, and not showing interior details. Sometimes a steersman, bow officer, or

rowers are drawn, the latter depicted as a line of heads or circles (on some carelessly drawn examples). At the same time special attention is paid to the sail of the ship, her prow and stern. Even in sketchily drawn ships both prow and stern are depicted as decorated (even if indicated in a very casual way, the painter’s intentions are almost always clear). There are two variants of prow decoration known to the present author from Athenian black-figure vases: the head of a boar (which is unmistakable) and the head of a creature, sometimes called a ‘dolphin’ in the literature (Gorbunova 1983: 67). The pairing of a warship with an attacking boar links the beast to Ares. D. Carlson writes, ‘the ram – the primary offensive weapon of the ancient galley – takes on the menacing appearance of a wild boar, suggesting that the resemblance between an attacking warship and a charging animal was not lost on the ancient Greeks. The association between boar and ship’s ram is also a central feature of Archaic silver coins’ (Carlson 2009: 357). But at the same time there are many depictions of ships on Athenian black-figure vases with a ‘dolphin’ head as a ram. The dolphin, a rather peaceful creature, does not fit well with the idea of a warship. It is tempting, of course, to connect all the drawings of ships with ‘dolphin’ prows with merchant vessels, and all the drawings of ships with boar prows with warships. But the ships themselves are similar in shape and other detail; it is not possible to differentiate them by the decoration of the ram. The ship on the Munich 2044 vase, which is meant to show a Tyrrhenian pirate boat, has a prow in the shape of a ‘dolphin’s’ snout. It is perhaps more helpful to think of the boar and ‘dolphin’ prow as metaphors, depending on the wish of the individual painter who wanted to indicate either the force of the ship, struggling through the waves, or the lightness of the ship, gliding over the sea’s surface. Moreover, it is quite possible, that ‘dolphin’ prows in the pictorial tradition of Athenian vase-painting could derive from distorted boar prows, as the only difference between the two is whether the ears are visible or not, i.e. Hermitage vessels B1527 and B1525 (Gorbunova 1983: cat. 46 and 60). The stern decoration on Athenian black-figure vases does not vary as much as the prow: usually it is a bird (or, less clearly, an avian derivative, or even ‘dolphin’-like in form) (Gorbunova 1983: cat. 60). The meaning bird within the context of the ‘positive’ imagery of the sea, given by Athenian black-figure vase-painting, is connected to the idea of feelings of safety on the sea’s surface, or a comparison of flight. Turning to the depiction of oars, depending on the measure of refinement of the drawing, different Athenian vasepainters show either rows of diagonal incised strokes, with thicker lower parts for the oar blades, or merely holes in the deck of the ship to show the arrangement of the rigging, with more or less detail, but in all cases oars are shown. Thus the oars and sail are represented as important parts of the ship. However there seems to have been no attempt on Athenian black-figured vases to accurately draw the correct numbers of oars for commonly known vessels from 156

Anna Petrakova: Depictions of Ships on Attic Black- and Red-Figured Vases the written sources (trireme, penteconter, etc.). There are, of course, some representations of ships showing multiple banks of oars, possibly 14, 15 or 16 (inferring a trireme perhaps), but there are also many examples showing 17, 18, 19 or 6, 7, 8, 9, depending on the carefulness of the vase-painter drawing the strokes. Regarding depictions of the ships, in geometric vases they are shown in profile entirely, but with more interest paid to the inner arrangements than to the outer parts. For Athenian black-figure vases, mostly the preserved examples show the ships entirely, with special attention given to prow, stern, deck with oars, and sail. Ships are shown in profile, with an attempt to render a ‘natural’ view of the sailing ship, with only the heads of the rowers visible. The profile is the main view for selected for the ships on Athenian black-figure vases: some frontal views do exist, such as the frontal prow with two eyes on London 1873.8-20.369 under the depiction of Nike, and a frontal stern as an emblem of Athena’s shield on Munich 1460; in both cases the depiction of the ship is not meant to be ‘naturalistic’, but schematic. In addition there are some drinking-cups, such as Leipzig T 472 (CVA Leipzig 2: taf. 31.3-4, 33.2, 34.3), ex-Bastis collection (v Bothmer 1987: 272-273, no.159), New York MA 56.171.36 (BAPD: 302630), Copenhagen 3385 (CVA Copenhagen 1: pl. 23.12, 24.1-2, 25.1, 26.1, 27.1-3, 28.1-2), amphora London B 240 (CVA London 4, pl. 58.4A), on outer parts of which we can see the depiction of only the prow of the ship or, rarer, only the stern. The depiction of the prow is a more widespread variant, perhaps because it is more richly decorated part of the ship. In all the mentioned above examples the sea is also indicated below the ship (sometimes even with waves and fishes) and the boarders of the sea end at the same place, where the ship finishes. Such a way of showing the sea and ships reminds us again that Athenian black-figure vase-painting was a conventional art with a special perception and representation of space, time and other realities; even if dinoi and kraters give an illusion of a ‘naturalistic’ approach to the depiction of the sea and ships. There are also some vases with the depiction of a ship’s prow, such as London B 343 and B 316 (CVA London 6: pl. 94.3, 95.3 and 79.4, 83.1), or a ship-stern, such as Norwich 72.20 (Burow 1989: taf. 145, U5), used as an emblem on a shield. In red-figure vase-painting, ships are shown mostly in sections only, mainly the stern (often with ladder) and by the shore, and they are linked with certain mythological episodes, usually connected with sea travel (before or after the depicted scene), such as on New York MA 34.11.7 (Shapiro 1994: 97, fig. 65), Berlin 30928 (CVA Berlin 9: taf. 14.2-6, 15.1-3, 57.3), Syracuse 17427 (CVA Syracuse 1: pl. 10.1-6), and Ruvo 1501. Even though sometimes we see in these drawings some elements not shown on black-figure vases, like, for example, stern decoration in the form of a female head on New York MA 34.11.7. In all these examples it is not the ship that is central for the artist but the characters and how they interact with each other in the context of a certain mythological story.

Ships and their appearance in descriptive and pictorial traditions We have no way of comparing Athenian black-figure paintings of ships and their descriptions in written sources. The majority of the written sources about ships was made before or after 540-490 BC. The period itself is rather poor for written evidence about ships. Moreover, as Morrison writes, ‘the poets of the period 700-480 BC were naturally much under the influence of Homer’s language; and this influence is shown in the epithets they gave to ships.’ (Morrison and Williams 1968: 119) Epithets from the Odyssey and later poetry include: ‘fast’, ‘swift’, ‘firm’, ‘with firm deck’, ‘fast-going’, ‘bent’, ‘with black sides’ (II, 18 and 421), ‘with red sides’ (IX, 125), ‘with blue nose’ (III, 299), ‘with black nose’ (IX, 482), ‘doubletailed’ (VI, 264) etc. In the Iliad there are also references to ‘decorations of the stern’, with the heroes trying to grasp them (XV, 718), or to cut them (IX, 241) and apparently take them as trophies. The analysis of the written sources, located in time between Homer and Themistocles, made by Morrison, shows few descriptions of the appearance of ships (rather more important details of construction are mentioned in poetry, rather than decorative elements, which the vase-painting shows us), but many more descriptions of the situations involving ships than the vase-paintings show. While the poetry describes storms, the vase-painting concentrates more on depictions of calm seas and successful journeys. As well as the idea of popularizing ships on vase-painting, we can perhaps detect a wish to depict only ‘positive’ things concerning ships, the reasons for this being linked with age-old notions of negative images being associated with the supernatural, when they could be described but not depicted. No reasons seem to exist for any difference in this descriptive and pictorial tradition of the period between 540-490 BC, when in the descriptive arts the Greeks were speaking about storms and shipwrecks, but they were not to deal with the subject in visual representations. Even more than shipwrecks, the variability of treatments of nautical subjects in prose and poetry is much wider than in the pictorial traditions of black-figure vases: a ship travels with the help of the wind (Odyssey, XI, 10), a mast falls (Odyssey, XII, 410), ships move under sail and with the help of oars at the same time (Odyssey, IV, 578-580), ships moving only with oars because of the lack of wind and the sail is rolled down (Odyssey, XII, 170-172),etc. The most common situation seen on black-figure vases is a ship moving under oar and wind power. Depictions such as Heidelberg 25/8 (CVA Heidelberg 4: taf. 162.10-11), with its rolled down sail are rather rare: the sails are usually shown full of wind. Sometimes the sail is not depicted but suggested only, such as on Madrid 10902 (CVA Madrid 1: pl. 4.1-3, 5.1-3, 6.1-3, 7.1-4) or Louvre F 61 (CVA Louvre 2: pl. 2.2-4): as if there were insufficient space to depict the ship entirely and the vase-painter only indicates the rigging hanging down from the upper spars of the mast. It is safe to suggest that the vase painters preferred to depict fair weather conditions. Neither storms with high waves or vessels becalmed (both so often described in the written 157

SOMA 2010 sources) were represented in Athenian black-figure vasepainting, contrary to the descriptions of such things in the written sources. Ships are shown in harmony with nature, not struggling with it. Perhaps there are some motives behind the depictions of ships in Athenian black-figure vase-painting which can be explained just by the pictorial tradition, sometimes as a consequence of an idea of copying a successful image, sometimes deriving from the misunderstanding of some artists’ intentions. Morrison sees the beginning of the tradition of depictions of Attic long-ships in black-figure vase-painting on the Francois Vase (Morrison and Williams 1968: 90). To this I would add the ‘dolphin’-shaped ram (deriving from the misunderstanding of the ram in the shape of a boar’s head, with ears missing). As for the ornaments on the upper part of the ram – they are common ornaments used for the decoration of dress, architectural elements, and other features on black-figure vases, and it would not be helpful to treat them as depictions of real decorative elements of ships of this epoch. The depiction of eyes on ships is also of interest. The remains of real ships and descriptions of them indicate that large eyes were sometimes painted on ships, and sometimes were made of marble and attached to the wood. Some scholars even guess at the shape of these eyes and that they differed depending on the type of ships, as Carlson noticed at the Tektas Burnu shipwreck: ‘the discovery confirms the accuracy of several illustrations that suggest that merchant ships… were equipped with circular eyes, while more anthropomorphic, almond-shaped eyes were reserved for warships.’ (Carlson 2009: 362) Although this element of decoration seems to be important, there are few examples of the depiction of eyes decorating ships on Athenian black-figure vases. Eyes are depicted on the Louvre F 123 vessel (CVA Louvre 10: pl. 95.2-3.7-10.12, 96.1.4), London 1867.5-8.964 (Morrison 1996: 184, fig. VI), Thebes 17077 (CVA Thebes: pl. 70.1-4) and London 1873.8-20.369 (CVA London 1: pl. 4.3A-B; prow under the figure of Nike), but these examples are exceptions among the many depictions of ships without them. On the other hand, for the period 530-490 BC, precisely when the number of depictions of ships on black-figure vases increases suddenly, there also appears a group of drinking with large ‘apotropaic’ eyes (Jordan 1988; Steinhart 1995). On the late cups they are rather carelessly drawn, but on the cups dated 530-520 BC these eyes look similar to the marble eyes on ships and their coloured reconstructions (Carlson 2009). In particular the purple dot inside the black disc in the eyes of the painted cups seem to be a representation of the lead spike that attached the symbol to the ship – such a spike, piercing a marble disc, was found at Tektas Burnu. Finally for discussion there is an aspect of the well-known painted Dionysus ship motif (or ‘ship-cart’). In addition to the much discussed Munich 2044 vase, a unique item, there are two common ways of depicting the god: a realistic treatment of Dionysus at sea, such as on the

black-figure amphora Tarquinia 678 (CVA Tarquinia 1: pl. 5.1), and widely spread variant depicting a ‘ship-cart’ on two wheels, such as on the black-figure skyphoi Athens NM, Acropolis coll. 1.1281 (Steinhart 1995: taf. 36.2), the London B 79 (Haspels 1936: 250.30), the Bologna DL 109 (CVA Bologna 2: pl. 43.1-4) etc. In terms of ship design these images add little, but the attention paid by vase painters to this theme raises the interesting idea of looking for metaphorical connections between the sea and wine in the context of the Anthesteria festival (one of the several Athenian festivals for Dionysus). One of the elements of this event was the ceremony of opening wine barrels, which was associated with the idea of the initial ‘taming’ of the sea and the beginnings of navigation (which were also linked to the spring and the start of better weather in the eastern Mediterranean). The linking of the ‘taming’ of the sea and the ‘domestication’ of wine by Dionysus could have been a source for the development of decorative elements such Dionysus, Ariadne, dancing satyrs and maenads painted on the outside of vases, and with sailing ships painted on the inside, such as on the Hermitage column-krater B 1525 (Gorskaya et.al 2009: 49, cat. 8). Conclusions It seems there was an established and understood ‘image’ of the ship as applied on both Athenian black- and redfigured vase-painting. It had to do more with a pictorial tradition rather than a descriptive one and it developed without a direct connection to any descriptive tradition, and sometimes even in a way that was contradictory to it. The depiction of ships, including both appearance and composition, was the result of the ‘art’ of the vase painter, who chose what to depict and what to omit according to an idea of the ‘image’ that the painter wanted to realize. Thus we should be careful when trying to interpret depictions of ships on vases as sources of data for actual ship reconstructions and how real ships were made and used in ancient world. As well as the depictions of ships themselves the image was used as metaphor for the sea (as were dolphins and fish) and to indicate that the pained scene was happening at sea (e.g. Achilles and the Islands of the Blest), or that a sea journey had just finished or was expected soon. There was a known set of nautical elements and a tradition of ship depiction in Geometric, Athenian black-figure and red-figure vase-painting. This important tradition, reflected in the paintings of 540-490 BC, performed the function of propaganda or publicity for nautical travel, colonization, ships and trade, and was in contrast to the symbolism of geometric pottery – instead of shipwrecks and monsters we see ships as solid, firm, safe and ‘good’ things, and the sea is also shown as being calm and beneficial. The fact that such images almost totally disappeared from vase paintings in the following period can be connected with the idea that there was no further need for such propaganda.

158

Anna Petrakova: Depictions of Ships on Attic Black- and Red-Figured Vases References Ahlberg, G. (1971) Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art, Stockholm. Ahlberg-Cornell, G. (1984) Herakles and the Sea-Monster in Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painting, Stockholm. Boardman, J. (1998) Early Greek pottery, Oxford. Bothmer, D. et al. (1987), Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis, Mainz. Bundrick, S.D., (2008), ‘The Fabric of the City: Imaging Textile Production in Classical Athens’, Hesperia 77, 283-334. Burow, J. (1989), Der Antimenesmaler, Kerameus, 7, Mainz. Carlson, D., 2009, ‘Seeing the Sea: Ship’s Eyes in Classical Greece’, Hesperia 78/ 3, 347-365 Cohen, B. et al. (eds.) (2000), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden. Delivorrias et al. (eds.) (1987) Greece and the sea (exhibition catalogue), Amsterdam. Fittschen, K., (1969) Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen. Gorbunova, K. (1983) Chernofigurnie atticheskie vasi v Ermitage [Black-figure Attic vases in the State Hermitage museum], Leningrad. Gorskaya, O. et al. (eds.) (2009) More i morehodstvo v antichoy kulture [The sea and seafaring in ancient culture. Exhibition catalogue, 23 October 2009 to 9 March 2010], St.-Petersburg. Haspels, C. (1936) Attic Black-figured Lekythoi, Paris. Jordan, J. (1988), Attic black-figured eye-cups (dissertation, New York Univ.). Lissarrague, F. (1987). Un flot d’images; une esthétique de banquet grec, Paris.

Morrison, J (1996) Greek and Roman Oared Warships, Oxford. Morrison, J. and Coates J. (1990) ‘Die athenische Triere, Geschichte und Rekonstruktion eines Kriegsschiffs der griechischen Antike, Mainz am Rhein’, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt, 44. Morrison, J. and Williams, R. (1968) Greek Oared Ships 900-332 BC, Cambridge. Samara-Kauffman, A. (ed.) (2008) La Mer: des dieux, des héros, et des hommes dans l’art grec antique. Tour Philippe le Bel, 25 octobre – 30 novembre 2008. Villeneuve-lez-Avignon (France). Shapiro, A. (1994) Myth into Art, Poet and Painter in Classical Athens, London. Shapiro, A. (1989) Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz am Rhein. Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. (1999) Pictorial narrative in ancient Greek art, Cambridge. Steinhart, M. (1995) Das Motiv des Auges in der griechischen Bildkunst, Mainz. Taruashvili, L. (1998) Tektonika vizualnogo obraza v poezii antichnosti i hristianskoy Evropi, K voprosu o kulturnoistoricheskih predposilkah ordernogo zodchestva [The visual image in the poetry of classical antiquity and Christian Europe: the question of cultural-historical prerequisites for order in architecture], Moscow. Wallinga, H. (1993) Ships and Sea - Power before the Great Persian War, The Ancestry of the Ancient Trireme, Leiden. Webster, T. (1939), ‘Tondo Composition in archaic and classical greek Art’, JHS 59. Zemer, A. (1998) Dionysos and his Companions, Haifa.

159

160

Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware from the lower city sondage in Kelenderis Mehmet Tekocak

Selçuk University, Department of Archaeology, Konya, Turkey

Kelenderis which was located in Mersin-Aydıncık was a very significant harbour city of Middle Rough Cilicia in ancient times (Fig. 1). Much of its material is widespread, as the excavations and researches that have been done in the city to date reveal. One of these is Phocean Red Slip Ware which forms an important part of Late Roman Red Slip Ware group in the east. This group is also called Phocean Red Slip Ware in the literature. This red slip ware, first named by Waagé,1 was the biggest competitor of the African Red Slip in the east in the 4th century A.D.. The production place of the Late Roman C, commonly seen in Eastern Mediterranean from the 5th century to the 7th century, is claimed to be Asia Minor.2 It is known that Phocea, in the west of Turkey, was one of the most important production places of this series in Asia Minor.3 They are probably related to the goods of Çandarlı and seen as their successors. Hayes also mentions a small production area called Grynion near Pergamon.4 Late Roman C ware can be easily distinguished by its fabric characteristics from all other African Red Slip except Tripolis Red Slip (fortunately only seen together on rare occasions).5 The greatest rival to this group, quite popular in Eastern Mediterranean, is supposed to be Cypriot Red Slip. It was seen that Late Roman C ware was more common than Cypriot Red Slip except in some parts of the southern coasts of Asia Minor, Lower Egypt and Cyprus. It was almost the only ware to be used in the area from Sicily to Russia from the mid-5th century to the early 7th century.6 The ceramics with thin particles and porous clay are usually in brownish red, purply red and chestnut colour when baked well. They are hard, medium hard and smooth. There are lime, some mica and sometimes black particles in them as additives. Less well fired specimens have orange or orange red, soft and powdery clay. Firing usually creates the same colour except for the exterior surface of the rim. This area is not completely colourless; on the contrary it is more colourful than normal, showing a dark brown, black and creamy white colour, and sometimes the surface is layered. The reason for this is that the pots are piled in the oven when fired, causing only the rims to be exposed to the gas inside. Uniting with the body and covering the whole surface, the red slip is like a good quality layer of thin   Waagé 1933, 279-328.   Hayes 1972, 323. 3   Hayes 1980, 525; Williams 1989, 45; Hayes 2008, 83. 4   Hayes 2008, 83-84. 5   Hayes 1972, 323-324. 6   Hayes 1972, 368; Williams 1989, 46, not.21-22. 1 2

film. With a dull and sometimes metallic look, this layer is actually the thinned body clay. It is sometimes applied to the interior surface thicker than the exterior surface.7 It was observed that the thickness of the body varies in some examples and this was given as a reason for a weak pot. The multi-coloured rims usually have irregular profiles. Roulette decorations applied with tools that are able to create double, triple or quadruple bands at once were quite popular in the 5th and 6th centuries. This application is not seen outside Asia Minor.8 L.E. Vaag argues that the claim that the pots are mould made is wrong and that the rims were probably shaped by hand.9 Significant information about this group has been given in the chapter on Phocean Red Slip Ware in Hayes’s recent study on imported fine ceramics dug from the Athenian Agora.10 The ceramics to be discussed in this study were discovered in the area called the ‘Mosaic Area-Lower City Sondage’ located in the Lower City (Figs. 2-4) during the excavations performed of 1989-1992.11 This location is in the west of the port area, which is still in use, and south of the theatron, surrounded by a garden wall from of the 19th century. As understood from the graph (Fig. 5), five main forms were discovered in Kelenderis Lower City Sondage. These forms are divided into sub-types. All forms found are plates and bowls used for food service. The clay fabrics of the pieces in Kelenderis have limestone, mica and sand and with some exceptions they are firm and non-porous. Sand additive is less in ratio than the others. The colour of the clay is mostly light red (2.5 YR 6/8; 10 YR 6/6, 6/8) and red. Thin, almost completely dull and soapy slip contains silver mica and is light red (10 YR 6/8) and (10 YR 5/8; 2.5 YR 5/8) red in colour. Only one of our pieces (K. Form 3b Fig. 6. 12) has a print roulette decoration on the rim surface; a small part of the rest has horizontal chamfers and the others are plain. It is interesting that the popular roulette decoration of the time is not seen on our pieces. The forms discovered are dated to the end of 4th century to the middle of the 7th century. The most common form in Kelenderis, as in many other cities, is K. Form 3 (Fig. 6. 7-18; Fig. 7. 19-23). The abundance of this   Hayes 1972, 323-324.   Hayes 1972, 324. 9   Vaag 2003, 206. 10   Hayes 2008, 83-88. 11   Zoroğlu 1988, 409-422; 1989, 135-155; 1991, 301-322; 1992, 241254; 1993, 165-180; 1995, 189-209; 1996, 263-276; 1997, 383-400; Zoroğlu, Arslan 1999, 457-462; Zoroğlu vd. 2000, 323-336; Zoroğlu, Arslan, Tekocak 2001, 311-324; Zoroğlu, Çalık-Ross, Tekocak, Evrin 2004, 451-456. 7 8

161

SOMA 2010 type in Kelenderis, produced in the 5th century and in the middle of the 6th century A.D., is significant in showing the extensive relations of the city with the wider Aegean region througought these dates. Kelenderis Form 1 (Fig. 6. 1-3): Dish. (Hayes Form 1). Plate with a vertical, slightly rounded rim sloping inwards, a curved body and a ring base. They are big or small according to their forms. It is a quite common form and divided into 4 sub-types according to the forms of their rims and base12. There are chronological differences also among types. Kelenderis Form 1a (Fig. 6. 1-2): Dish. (Hayes Form 1A). Deep plate with a high vertical rim sloping inwards and slightly rounded tip, a curved body and a long foot thinning downwards. There is a slight curve on the body. The foot narrowing downwards is triangular and of medium height. The tondo is raised above the surface. It is dated to the end of 4th century and early 5th century A.D.13 Kelenderis Form 1b (Fig.6. 3): Dish. (Hayes Form 1B). Deep plate with a shorter vertical rim slightly rounded on the top, a curved body and a low ring base. The tondo touches the ground. It is dated to the beginning and middle of the 5th century A.D.14 Kelenderis Form 2 (Fig. 6. 4-6): Dish. (Hayes Form 2). Deep plate with a rounded rim slanting outwards and extending widely, a slightly curved body and a fake or a low ring base. The wall is thick. As the part placed on the foot is low, the wide and flat tondo is quite close to the ground outside; inside there are seal imprint decorations like rosettes and palm tree branches. According to Hayes, this group was created under the influence of Form 59 of the African Red Slip from the middle-late 4th century A.D. both in form and decoration15. Hayes divided this group into three sub-types and mentioned that the first two types were quite common16. The earliest example to this type was found in a filling dated to the last quarter of the 4th century A.D. in the Athens Agora.17 Hayes gives 425-450 A.D. as the production dates and argues that there is no proof of any production activities after the middle of the 5th century.18 Findings at Kelenderis are dated to the mid5th century A.D. Kelenderis Form 2a (Fig. 6. 4): Dish. (Hayes Form 2A). Wide and deep plate with a rounded rim slanting outwards and extending widely and a slightly curved body. The upper surface of the rim is flat and has small holes. The transition from the rim to the body is quite sharp inside. There is a concave transition outside from the end of the body to the rim.   Hayes 1972, 325-327, fig. 65.   Hayes 1972, 327. 14   Hayes 1972, 327. 15   Hayes 1972, 328. 16   Hayes 1972, 327. 17   Hayes 1972, 328. 18   Hayes 1972, 329. 12

Kelenderis Form 2b (Fig. 6. 5-6): Dish. (Hayes Form 2B). Deep plate with a slightly rounded rim slanting outwards with a narrow extension, a slightly curved body and a fake and low ring base. The upper surface of the rim is flat. The placing surface of the pieces with low foot is slanted and the inner parts touch the ground. The tondo is wide and flat. The transition from the convex body to the foot is sharp in the piece with a fake foot. Kelenderis Form 3 (Fig. 6. 7-18; Fig. 7. 19-23): Dish/ Bowl. (Hayes Form 3). Wide plate or bowl in varying depths. Wide plate/bowl in varying depths having a vertical rim thickened outside and sloping downwards with usually concave exterior surface, a curved body widening through stretching to the sides and a fake or a low ring base. The rim is thickened and extends to the sides outside and slopes downwards in the lower part. There are usually printed roulette decorations on the concave exterior surface of the rim and printed roulette, chamfers, geometrical shapes and cross motifs on the tondo. One of the most common forms of the Late Roman C-Phocean Red Slip Ware, it was produced during the 5th to mid-6th centuries A.D.19 Hayes examined this form in 8 sub-types.20 Kelenderis Form 3a (Fig. 6. 7-10): Dish/Bowl. (Hayes Form 3C). This group is mostly in bowl form.21 Wide plate/ bowl with a rim thickened outside and sloping downwards and a curved body. The rim slopes downwards from the end of the body outside and disappears on the upper part through thinning or slightly thickening. The exterior face of the rim is flat or slightly concave with no decoration or a roulette decoration. The second half of the 5th century A.D. Kelenderis Form 3b (Fig. 6. 11-12): Dish/Bowl. (Hayes Form 3D). Wide plate/bowl with a vertical rim thickened outside and sloping downwards and a curved body. The curve of the rim is flat on the upper part and the part sloping downwards is rounded. The exterior surface of the rim is slightly concave with decorations or no decoration. Dated to the last quarter of the 5th century A.D., this group is represented by two pieces from the lower city of Kelenderis. The upper surface of the rims that curve inwards on the Kelenderis pieces are not completely flat but slightly convex. Kelenderis Form 3c (Fig. 6. 13-18; Fig. 7. 19): Dish/ Bowl. (Hayes Form 3E). Wide plate/bowl with a vertical rim thickened outside and sloping distinctly downwards and a curved body. The upper surface of the rim is slightly convex and slopes inwards. The rim slopes downwards more distinctively than the other types. The exterior surface of the rim has no decoration or rouletting. A small ridge can be seen on the connection of the body and the rim. The last quarter of the 5th century A.D.

13

  Hayes 1972, 337-338.   Hayes 1972, 330-336. 21   Hayes 1972, 329. 19 20

162

Mehmet Tekocak: Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware Kelenderis Form 3d (Fig. 7. 20): Dish/Bowl. (Hayes Form 3F). Wide plate/bowl with a vertical rim thickened distinctively outside and sloping downwards and a curved body. The rim is shorter and thicker than the other subtypes. The convex look of the exterior surface of the rim is more distinctive. The extension downwards is less. It is dated to the first half of the 6th century A.D.

which we are concerned in this article is highly important, since this group informs us about the Late Roman Period of Kelenderis. However, it must be said that this material is not the only fine ceramic group found in this antique city. Other samples of fine ceramic groups that were produced in different centres and became fashionable and had a wide area of usage were found in the excavations in the city.23

Kelenderis Form 3e (Fig. 7. 21-23): Dish/Bowl. (Hayes Form 3H). Wide plate/bowl with a vertical rim thickened outside and sloping downwards and a curved body. The upper surface of the rim, almost in triangular shape, is rounded and the extension downwards is edged. The concave look of the exterior surface of the rim is more distinct than the other pieces. It is dated to the first half of the 6th century A.D.

The earliest example of Late Roman C Ware found in the Kelenderis Lower City Sondage belongs to the end of 4th century A.D., and the latest one belongs to the mid-7th century A.D. As a result of our researches, 5 main forms and some subtypes belonging to these forms have been identified. The mostly encountered type, as mentioned above, is K. Form 3 (Hayes Form 3). In this case we can say that the city expanded its commercial relations with the Aegean in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D., or at least they tried.

Kelenderis Form 4 (Fig. 7. 24-26): Plate/Bowl. (Kelenderis Variant 1). It is similar to Kelenderis Form 3. Plate/bowl with a vertical rim thickened outside and slightly sloping downwards and a curved body. Though resembling Kelenderis Form 3d, it has a thickened rim. The concave look of the outer surface and the sloping is no more distinct. There is a small ridge on the connection part of the body and the rim. The first half of the 6th century A.D. Kelenderis Form 5 (Fig. 7. 27-30): Plate. (Hayes Form 10). Wide plate with a long knob-shaped or flattened rim, a body extending straight or with a small curve to the sides and a low ring base or a fake base. The upper surface of the rim is round or flat and the lower surface is concave with a small ridge on the connection part of the body and the rim. Hayes divides this group into three sub-types and offers late 6th and mid-7th centuries A.D. as the production date.22 Kelenderis Form 5a (Fig. 7. 27-28): Dish. (Hayes Form 10A). Wide plate with a thick knob-shaped or square-like rim, a body extending straight to the sides and a low ring base. The lower surface of the rim is concave and there is a small ridge at the connection part of the rim and the body. The connection point of the body and the rim inside is distinguished by a sharp line. Kelenderis Form 5b (Fig. 7. 29-30): Dish. (Hayes Form 10C). Wide plate with a long, flattened rim, a body extending straight or with a slight convex slope to the sides and a low or a fake base. The upper surface of the rim is flat or slightly concave. There is a small ridge outside at the connection part of the body and the rim. The connection of the body and the rim inside is quite soft and there is a significant difference of height. Conclusion Phocean Red Slip Ware which is accepted as the Late Roman Period’s luxurious, vessels for daily use, and with   Hayes 1972, 343-345, 346.

22

When we compare the Late Roman Red Slip Ware which was found in the city with this material, we see that the Late Roman C Group is inferior to Cypriot Red Slip Ware. This shows us that Kelenderis made its initial choice of Late Roman luxury daily-ware from the nearest production centres and then moved further away: that is Cyprus, Phokia and Africa.24 In this sense we can easily say that Kelenderis seems to have always preferred the less costly products, especially for their luxurious items. In other words, falling on harder times in the Early and Middle Empire periods they later found themselves later in better circumstances: Kelenderis could afford more luxurious goods in the Late Roman period than before. When we compare Kelenderis Late Roman C Red Slip Ware with finds from other cities in the area, we see that our material comes second in terms of both form variety and quantity of finds. This situation can obviously be seen especially in Tarsus, which was a rich settlement of Cilicia Pedias, and in Anemurium, Elaiussa Sebaste and Soli/ Pompeipolis, which are the cities of Rough Cilicia (Fig. 8).25 Tarsus leads the way in that. In fact it is the same for other red slip ware groups found in the lower city sondage. Such a result, at first sight, brings to mind that the city, which it seems began to enjoy a peaceful period in the Late Roman period, probably was not in such a favourable situation in the region. However, it must be noted that it will not be possible to come to an accurate conclusion on this solely by considering the ceramics of luxurious usage.26 But the other groups that were found with the Late   Tekocak 2006, 32-67 (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis); Tekocak 2007, 16-25; Tekocak 2009, 75-82. 24   Tekocak 2006, 49, table 4, 90-93 (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis); Tekocak 2007, 16-25; Tekocak 2009, 75-82. 25   We came to this conclusion as a result of my visits, examinings, and face-to-face discussions on the findings that were found in the excavations in Soli/Pompeipolis (Mezitli/Mersin), Tarsus (Tarsus Republic Square) and Elaiussa Sebaste (Ayaş/Mersin) in 2004 and 2005. Also the studies on the publications about these findings helped us. We want to thank the excavation leaders L.Zoroğlu, R.Yağcı and E.E.Schneider. Also see Zoroğlu 2005, 243-248; Williams 1989, 1-57, fig. 1-31; Ferrazzoli 2003, 649-661. 26   The findings and ruins such as the Kelenderis Mosaic, Agora Basilica 23

163

SOMA 2010 Roman C ceramics in the lower city sondage evidently proved that Kelenderis was not able to compete with other cities in the region in terms of fine ceramic repertoire. As a result, the Late Roman C ceramics showed that the city had connections with the Aegean in this period, or at least reached an economic level that enabled it to form connections with, but not to compete with other cities in the region.

Abbreviations and Bibliography Erzen, A., 1940, Kilikien bis zum Ende der Perserherrschaft. Ferrazzoli, F., 2003, Tipologia Dei Reperti Ceramici e Aspetti delle Produzioni e della Circolazione Dei Materiali, in Elaiussa Sebaste II. Vol.1, un porto tra Oriente e Occidente, (Ed. Eugenia Equini Schneider), Roma, 649-707. Hayes, J.W., 1972, Late Roman Pottery. Hayes, J.W., 1980, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W., 2008, The Athenian Agora: Roman Pottery Fine-Ware Imports, Volume XXXII, Princeton. Herodotus, Herodot Tarihi (Türkçesi: M.Ökmen). Kenrick, Ph.M., 1985, The Fine Pottery, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Vol. III, Part 1, (Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5), Tripoli. Langlois, V., 1947, Kilikyada Gezi (Çev.R.Balaban). Machatschek, A., 1967, Die Nekropolen und Grabmaler im Gebiet von Elaiussa Sebaste und Korykos im Rauhen Kilikien. T.B. Mitford, T.B.,-Andrews, St., 1980, “Roman Rough Cilicia”, ANRW II.7.2, 1230-1261. Strabo : Coğrafya, (Çev.A.Pekman). Tekocak, M., 2006, Kelenderis Roma Çağı Seramiği, Konya (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Tekocak, M., 2007, “Kelenderis Aşağı Şehir Sondajında Bulunan Kıbrıs Kırmızı Astarlı (Geç Roma D) Kapları”, İdol, Sayı: 33, 16-25. and Harbour Bath which were found in the excavations are important since they show us that Kelenderis was not a significant location in later times.

Tekocak, M., 2009, ‘African and Cypriot Red Slip Wares from Kelenderis’, 12th. Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, March 5-8 2008, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 2009, 75-82. Vaag, L.E., 2003, ‘A closer look at the making of Phocean Red Slip Ware bowls’, Varia Anatolica XV; Les Ceramiques En Anatolie Aux Epoques Hellenistique et Romane, (ed. C. Abadie-Reynal), İstanbul, 2003, 203207, Lev. CXII - CXIII. Waagé, F.O., 1933, ‘Excavations in the Athenian Agora. The Roman And Byzantine Pottery’, Hesperia 2, 1933, 279-328. Williams, C., 1989, Anemurium. The Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery, Wetteren. Zoroğlu, L., 1988 ‘Kelenderis 1986 Yılı Çalışmaları’, V. AST-I, 409-422. Zoroğlu, L., 1991, ‘Kelenderis 1989 Yılı Kazısı’, XII. KST-II, 301-322. Zoroğlu, L., 1992, ‘Kelenderis 1990 Yılı Kazısı’, XIII. KST-II, 241-254. Zoroğlu, L., 1993, ‘Kelenderis 1991 Yılı Kazısı’, XIV. KST-II, 165-180. Zoroğlu, L., 1994, Kelenderis I. Kaynaklar, Kalıntılar, Buluntular, 1994. Zoroğlu, L., 1985, ‘Kelenderis 1992 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, XV. KST-II, 1995, 189-209. Zoroğlu, L., 1996, ‘1994 Yılı Kelenderis Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, XVII. KST-II, 1996, 263-276. Zoroğlu, L., 1997, ‘Kelenderis 1995 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, XVIII. KST-II, 383-400. Zoroğlu, L. - Arslan, N., 1999, ‘Kelenderis 1997 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları’, XX. KST-II, 457-462. Zoroğlu, L., Tekdemir, S., Arslan, N., Tekocak, M., Öztürk, İ., 2000, ‘1998 Yılı Kelenderis Kazı Çalışmaları’, 21. KST-2, 323-336. Zoroğlu, L., Arslan, N., Tekocak, M., 2001, ‘Kelenderis Kazısı, 1999, Yılı Çalışmaları’, 22. KST-2, 311-324. Zoroğlu, L., Çalık-Ross, A., Tekocak, M., Evrin, V., 2004, ‘Kelenderis 2002 Yılı Kazısı Raporu’, 25. KST-2, 451456. Zoroğlu, L., ‘Roman Fine Wares in Cilicia: An Overview’, Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorvm (RCRF) Acta 39, Abingdon 2005, 243-248.

164

Mehmet Tekocak: Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware

Fig. 1: The Cilicia Region

Fig. 2: General view of Acropolis and Lower City, Kelenderis 165

SOMA 2010

Fig. 3: General view of sondage area

Fig. 4: Lower City sondage (detial) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Form 1

Form 2

Form 3

Form 4

Fig. 5: Rates of Late Roman C Ware in Kelenderis 166

Form 5

Mehmet Tekocak: Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware

Fig. 6: Late Roman C Ware from Kelenderis

167

SOMA 2010

Fig. 7: Late Roman C Ware from Kelenderis

168

Mehmet Tekocak: Late Roman C (Phocean Red Slip) Ware

Fig. 8: Rates of Late Roman C Ware from Cilicia

169

170

Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea) Viktor Vakhonieiev

Department of Underwater Archaeology, Black Sea Underwater Research Center, Ukraine

The rocks and islands of Adalary are 35 to 48m high above the sea level. They are situated in the water area of Gurzuf on the southern coast of the Crimea. Specific wind conditions off the main ridge of the Crimean Mountains and the complexity of the hydrological situation and currents around the islands made this region especially dangerous for sailing ships (Zelenko 1996, s. 6). This fact makes this region appropriate for underwater archaeological researches. A preliminary survey of the area was first conducted during the researches of the Institute of History for Material Culture in 1958 led by V. D. Blavatsky. A comprehensive underwater archaeological expedition from the Research and Training Centre of Underwater Archaeology of the Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University (under S. M. Zelenko) also conducted archaeological exploration in this area in 1995-1996, finding anchors and many fragments of ancient and medieval pottery (Zelenko 1995; Zelenko 1996; Zelenko 2008, s. 97-102; Zelenko web). The nature of the finds and their locations allowed researchers to assume that in this area there were the wrecks of 5 or 6 ships of the Antique and Medieval periods. In addition, the Crimean Underwater Archaeological Expedition of Ukraine, led by V. E. Gerasimov, conducted several series of dives in the Adalary area in 2008-2009 (Gerasimov 2010, s. 75). This area has 3 lithological zones: – A boulder-pebble zone, 30-150m in length. Pebble sediments are located near the water’s edge, then after 2-5m they increase in size as they go out into the. – A block zone consisting of megaliths of irregular shape and up to 10m long. They are randomly scattered; the area is an old abrasion terrace flooded during transgression. – A zone of sand and gravel sediments in depths of 8-10m at a distance of 250m from the shore. The zone is represented by large-grained sand and gravel with broken shells, pebbles and small boulders. Large Adalar is further from the shore than Little Adalar. It consists of upper-Jurassic light gray, middle-layer limestones, lying to the northwest at angles of 40-45°. Approximately every 20m the limestones are divided by cracks that extend to the northwest. It has an overall height of 85m (55m above sea level), a length of 90m, a width of 70m, with a volume of 300,000m3. The rock is surrounded by a ring of stone blocks at its base.

Little Adalar is situated closer to the shore and its limestone structure is similar to Large Adalar, but it varies in having angled strata of 60°. The limestone is also fractured, with open cracks to the northwest, repeating every 20-25m. The height of the rock is 35m, with an underwater section of 55m; the length is 80m, width 50-60m, and a volume of 130,000m3. The earthquake in 1927 greatly influenced the modern relief of the rock, as can be seen in the basement of a local building that was there about a hundred years ago. The rock decreased by almost a half during the earthquake (Vakhrishev web). The depth between the shore and Little Adalar is around 20m, while in the strait between Adalary it is only 7-13m. To the west and east of the geological profile the depths reach around 30m. To the south of Large Adalar there are depths of up to 38-40m, indicating that the Adalar rocks are more resistant to denudation and erosion and were once a limestone massif. Upper-Jurassic limestones were distributed much further south in the Late Miocene/Early Pliocene. Located on the border of a zone that divides the Crimean Mountain uplift and subsidence basin area of the Black Sea, they were subjected to destruction events. Erosion, landslide, mud and abrasion processes that occur rapidly in this area appear as a result of extreme forces to the topography and tectonics: most of the limestone massifs located here were obliterated. The last survived only in fragments from the watershed areas and the coastal region. The Adalary and other limestone massifs (and the related Massandrian breccia lower and middle sections of the slope) are preserved fragments of the limestones of this area. Later the Adalary massif shifted in horizontal and vertical directions, forming part of a vast sea block. The displacement occurred during activation of seismic processes that increased the level of the Black Sea. The sharp fall of the bed by 50m to the south of Large Adalar was the cause of the ancient Adalar landslip. At the end of the ancient Black Sea transgression an abrasion terrace emerged in its place. The limestone block of the Adalary massif was preserved and later the two rocks under discussion here slit off. The Adalary rocks formed into kekuras (pillars or cones) as a result of selective erosion of the Medium/Late Holocene. Sands circulate around the Adalary rocks during the year due to the strong undercurrents of different directions that arise periodically along the shoreline. This factor has to be considered in underwater research because it necessitates

171

SOMA 2010 re-examination of previously investigated sites. The recent increases in unauthorized digging and training dives are also threats to past excavations. Such activities occur nearly every day in the Adalar area. Archaeological investigation of possible sites of ancient and medieval shipwrecks along the southern coast of the Crimea is one of the promising directions for studies of the history of trade and shipping routes in antiquity. The Department of Underwater Heritage of Institute of Archaeology conducted the Gurzuf underwater archaeological expedition in order to continue the systematic archaeological exploration of the Adalary Rocks in 2009 (Vakhoneev 2010, s. 45-46). One of its goals was to gather information from local residents of Gurzuf and familiarize itself with the archaeological finds and material raised by local diving clubs and amateur divers. The methodology was based on conventional search and visual inspection techniques. Instead of running cables an automated underwater compass and computers were used. During the route, notes were taken of the nature of the bed and depth measurements made on plastic planchettes. Alignments along and across the underwater stone ridge to the north of Little Adalar were fixed. When finds were made (anchors and ceramics) decompression buoys were released and GPS coordinates logged and transferred to the research map. Photographs and video recordings were also made. Two agreements were made relating to not-forprofit scientific research with the administration of the ICC ‘Artek’ in 2010-2011; these included the provision of vessels, equipment, and accommodation.

air without special conservation processes (Shamray 2010, s. 474). Five finds relate to T-type anchors of the early Byzantine period (Fig. 2: 1-2). Based on data from the excavation of a shipwreck near the Turkish island of Yassi Ada, where 11 similar anchors were found dating to the turn of the 8th century (Bass, van Doorninck 1982, 121-140). According to Kapitan’s classification these are Type D, from the late Roman Empire and Byzantium. The same type was found by the Gurzuf divers around Adalar (Fig. 3: 2). This anchor is interesting in that the metal core was almost completely preserved (Frolov 2010, с. 18), however it was not adequately conserved (Fig. 3: 1). Four anchors classified by Kapitan as Type E, and dated no earlier than the 11th century, were also located (Fig. 2: 3-4). These anchors are similar to those found in the wreck excavations in Estuary (Turkey) (Doorninck 2004, p. 191, fig. 12-2). The local residents of Gurzuf also raised an anchor, now outside a local café (Fig. 3: 2) (Frolov 2010, s. 18). It is possible that this type of anchor was used in later times. Only one fragment was preserved from an anchor of later type (Fig. 2: 5). Other finds by local residents included a stone trapezoidal anchor with equal sides and three holes (Frolov 2010, s. 15). Two holes can be seen at the base of the widest part and a third, slightly larger in diameter, in the centre. The lower holes were made for the insertion of sharpened wooden stakes to increase the holding power. The upper hole was for the anchor rope. Finds of such anchors are very rare off the northern Black Sea coast and date to the 2nd millennium BC.

Exploration work in 2009-2011 was confined to a small area (10,000m2) to the east and north of the Adalaries (Vakhoneev 2010а, s. 19-20; Vakhoneev, 2010b, s. 57). An area known as Adalar 3 is an underwater rock ridge adjacent to the north (Fig. 1), with a height of 14-17m. It provides a natural barrier against strong currents and holds archaeological material. In subsequent years, the main efforts of visual exploration were also concentrated in this area. In the coastal zone no archaeological material was found, due to factors such as the strengthening and improving the coastline in 1965, the building of a breakwater and the creation of pebble beaches. Local residents, however, repeatedly found underwater ancient pottery, coins, etc., before these works began (Zelenko 1996, s. 7).

Some photographs were taken of the lead rods and clamps of ancient anchors in the possession of local Gurzuf residents (Frolov 2010, s. 17). Remains of these actual anchors are now very rare – rust has destroyed most of them (Fig. 3: 3).

After three years of research by the Gurzuf underwater archaeological expedition around the underwater ridge north of Little Adalar, ten medieval anchors and fragments of various types of amphorae were documented. Photographs of several other anchors found around Adalar by local residents were also obtained. All the anchors recorded during the archaeological research were left in situ. The remains were mostly formed of shell conglomerate, the metal cores of most of them having rotted away; the shell coverings would be quickly lost in

The ancient period was represented by only a very few (less than 10 found in 3 years) isolated fragments of Roman amphorae (2nd- 3rd century AD). A few items were found by a diving centre from Yalta. These fragments included handles of Bosporus amphorae Zeest Type 75 (Zeest 1960, s. 113, tabl. XXXI), and fragments of south Pontic amphorae; a few fragments of amphorae type Solokha 1 were found in the expeditions of the 1990s (Zelenko 1995, s. 8; 1996, s. 8, ris. 5).

A massive stone (called a ‘mortar’) was discovered underwater on the northwest side of Little Adalar (0.7 x 0.4m, 0.3m deep hole). It is an item from a medieval ship (Fig. 3: 5). Ceramic material was found randomly during throughout the survey. They were inspected for graffiti and classified to provide evidence of dating. There were three chronological groups.

172

Viktor Vakhonieiev: Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea) The medieval ceramic material falls into two chronological groups: the so-called early Byzantine and Genoese. The former ranges from the 8th-9th centuries and consists mainly of the upper parts of amphorae. This is the so-called Black Sea-type amphorae of different forms with a high conical neck and crown, extending from the flat top, with small zonal ribs on the wall (Fig. 4: 1-2). The same type is represented in the finds collected during the expeditions of the 1990s (Gerasimov 2010, s. 75; Zelenko 1996, s. 9). To the ‘Genoese’ period refer the fragments of glazed pottery and fragments of arched handles that rise above the rounded edge of the cylindrical mouth of the amphora. For 3 years a very representative collection of such ceramics was collected (Fig. 4: 4-5). This type occurs in layers of the 12th-14th centuries in the Chersoneses, in Partenit and Sudak (Romanchuk and other 1995, s. 28-32). There is a very representative collection of fragments of amphorae with high lifted handles (Fig. 4: 3), some with etched lines (graffiti?). Glazed ceramics are represented by bowls and plates on circular trays. They are decorated with geometrical ornaments on white backgrounds under a yellow or green tin glaze with metal oxides. A separate group of closed irrigation vessels was identified. Table earthenware is represented by pots and jugs. The presence of large fragments and whole forms is further evidence of medieval shipwrecks in the area; the large number of anchors also indicates the anchorage here. Gurzuf’s medieval fortifications are located near the rock known as Dzhenevez-Kaya. Its foundation is described by Procopius of Caesarea as a fortress of Justinian Aluston and Gorzouvites (VII, 11). Archaeological research in 1955-65 confirmed the existence of a Byzantine fortress from the middle of the 6th century. The most recent layers are dated to the 15th century (Dombrovskiy 1974, s. 9-13) and throughout its time the fortress occupied an advantageous position and became one of the first outposts of the Byzantines, and, later, Italian opportunists. References Bass, G. F., van Doorninck, F. H. (1982). Yassi Ada. Vol. I. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck. Texas, 121140. Blatov, А. S., Ivanov, V. А. (1992). Gidrologiya i godrodinamika shel’fovoy zony Chernogo morya (na primere Yuzjnogo berega Krima). Kiev, Naukova dumka, 242 s. Dombrovskiy, О. I. (1974). ‘Srednevekovye poseleniya i «isary» Krimskogo Yuzjnoberezj’ya’, Feodal’naya Tavrika: Materialy po istorii i arkheologii Krima. Kiev, S. 5-55.

Frolov, А. V. (2010). Taina velikoy odissei Gomera. Gurzuf, 28 s. Gerasimov, V. E. (2009). ‘Podvodno-arlheologicheskie issledovaniya na chernomorskom shel’fe Yuzjnogo berega Krima v 2008-2009’. Arkheologichni dosladzjennya v Ukraini. Kyiv-Luts’k, S.73-75. Kapitan, G. (1984). ‘Ancient anchors – technology and classification’, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology Vol. 13 (1), 33-44. Romanchuk, А. I., Sazanov, А. V. and Sedikova, L. V. (1995). Amfory iz kompleksov vizantiyskogo Khersona. Ekaterinburg, 110 s. Shamray, А. N. (2010). ‘Antichnie i srednevekovie zjeleznie yakorya Т-obraznogo tipa iz Kerchenskogo proliva (katalog nakhodok)’, Bosporskiye issledovaniyaSimferopol’, Kerch, Vipysk XXIV, 469-496. Zelenko S. (nd) ‘Rocks of Adalary - Ancient Shipwreck Site’, http://archaeology.kiev.ua/underwater/zelenko2. htm Vakhoneev V. V. (2009). ‘Pidvodno-arkheologichni roboty bilya skel’ Adalar u Krimy v 2009 r.’, Arkheologichni dosladzjennya v Ukraini, Kyiv-Luts’k, 45-46. Vakhoneev V. V. (2011). ‘Pidvodni arkheologichni doslidzjennya navkolo skel’ Adalary (Krim) v 20092010 rr.’, Istoriko-kul’turnoe Prichernomor’ya: izuchenie i ispol’zovanie v obrazovanii i tyrizme. Yalta, 19-20. Vakhoneev V. V. (2011). ‘Pidvodno-arkheologichni roboty navkolo skel’ Adalary’, Arkheologichni dosladzjennya v Ukraini 2010. Kyiv -Poltava, 57. Vakhrushev I. B. (nd). Priroda skal Adalar u Yuzjnogo berega Krima. www.nbuv.gov.ua/Articles/kultnar/ knp200014/knp14_2.doc Van Doorninck F. H. (2004). ‘Anchors’, in Bass J. F., Matthews S. D., Steffy R. J., Doornink F. H, Serce Limani. The Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. Vol. I. The Ship and Its Anchorage, Crew, and Passangers. Texas, 189-240. Zeest I. B. (1960). ‘Keramicheskaya tara Bospora’, Mateialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR (83), Moscow, 180 s. Zelenko S. М. (1995). ‘Otchet о rabote podvodnoy arkheologicheskoy ekspeditsii na shel’fe mejdu goroy Kastel’ i misom Ai-Todor v 1995’, Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine. Kiev, 47 s. Zelenko S. М. (1996). ‘Otchet о rabote podvodnoy arkheologicheskoy ekspeditsii na shel’fe mejdu goroy Kastel’ i misom Ai-Todor v 1996’, Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine– Kiev, 51 s. Zelenko S. М. (2008). Podvodnaya arkheologiya Krima. Kiev, 272 s.

173

SOMA 2010

Fig. 1. The Adalary region from space (source: Google Earth)

174

Viktor Vakhonieiev: Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea)

Fig. 2. Anchors found in 2009-2011

175

SOMA 2010

Fig. 3. Random amateur finds from around the Adalar Rocks

176

Viktor Vakhonieiev: Underwater archaeological investigations around the Adalary Rocks (Crimea)

Fig. 4. The upper parts of amphorae

177

178

A Multidisciplinary study: facial Reconstruction Aysun Altunöz Yonuk

Gazi University, Turkey, Ankara, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Sculpture

It is a known fact that the art of sculpture originates basically from the need of depiction and tries to reach an ideal and reflect reality. As the result of globalization, the art of sculpture has changed its vision and mission, and interacted with branches of sculpture and other sciences in terms of techniques and forms. Forensic anthropology is one of the sciences that overlaps with this art of sculpture. In this joint study, unknown skeletons or skulls are reconstructed and identified by forensic sculptors using the data from forensic anthropologists. The study is planned to help criminal investigations and to reconstruct important skeletal remains in museums. Many archeological remains (human and animal skeletons and skulls) are displayed in Turkey’s archeological natural and science museums, as they were unearthed. Today these remains can be reconstructed in actual sizes and identities by forensic institutions (forensic medicine, forensic anthropology and forensic dentistry) and by fine arts faculties (forensic sculptors and forensic artists) in joint multidisciplinary studies. The main purpose of this paper is to look at a special curriculum for students, in these many institutions, involved in facial reconstruction education and training. This fourteen-week course based on the resources of the Natural History Museum (MTA, Ankara) is discussed in this paper.

anatomy, have also developed into a unique field over time’’ (Candas 2004:57). There had been no application of forensic sculpting education in Turkey and no establishment with the facility to do so. Facial reconstructing, which needs the coordination of forensic medicine doctors, dentists, anthropologists and paleontologists, chemists, artists and sculptors, began coordinated development in Turkey in the late 1900s under the leadership of Dr Çağdır. Scientists with the important role of forensic identification (name, nationality, causes of death, etc.) and forensic medicine (age, gender, race, height, eye colour, hair type, teeth, chin and nose type, damages, etc.) also provide information of value in criminal cases. These works add value to other fields while coordinating with other disciplines on forensic cases. The two and three dimensional works and facial constructions which are provided by painters and sculptors are extremely useful for medical identification cases. These groups also help to identify bones and skulls which are kept and exhibited in archeology and nature-science museums. ‘The faces of famous historic figures were reconstructed and compared with portraits and death masks, in order to verify the authenticity of the skulls and the reconstructive technique. In this way the faces of Schiller, Bach and Dante were reconstructed. The obvious move from this research was to use the reconstructive technique to recreate the faces of unidentified individuals from forensic remains.’ (Wilkinson and Neave 2002: 1434).

Forensic sculpturing: education program and lesson contents ‘A forensic artist has received specialist training to apply and combine artistic skills and scientific information. By using post-modern images or facial reconstruction, they can make hand-drawn or computerized enhancements to images that may help with the identification of an unknown deceased person, or trace a long term missing or wanted person.’ (ACPO. 2009:7) ‘Facial reconstruction began in Turkey in 1994 within the Forensic Medicine Institution. The very first studies by Çağdır in this field contained works which focused on a series of skulls from known individuals.’ (Kürkçüoğlu, Simsek, et al. 2009: 130). These works had mostly focused on forensic identification. ‘But in archeology, the reconstructing of mummies and other items are also important parts of modeling works. These activities, which need a good knowledge of

The most famous examples of teamwork based facial reconstruction include the Pharaoh Tutankhamun (fig.1), Queen Nefertiti, Nicolaus Copernicus, J. Sebastian Bach, Emannuel Kant, and even King Midas! Unfortunately it is not possible to see a fully identified in any of Turkey’s ‘363 museums…, 188 of them operated by the Ministry of Culture, 146 of them in private hands, and the 29 virtual museums.’ (http://www.kultur.gov.tr) However we have no medical reconstructions in our museums, which have wide historical and cultural links. Only the King Midas (fig.2) reconstruction has been protected and is on display within the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. The other important reconstruction relates to the ‘Carian Princes’ (fig.3) exhibited in the Underwater Archaeology Museum of Bodrum. Both of these facial reconstructions were created by foreign forensic sculptors. 179

Table 1 Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. (Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). Name of Program: Department of Sculpture Program of Master’s Degree

Name and code of subject: Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art

1-2 Language

2

4

2

2

10

6

ECTS

Credit

Total

Others

Credits

Project

Lab.

Workshop

Theory

Half-term

Methods of Teaching and Training

4

Turkish

Compulsory / Elective Compulsory Precondition

Must have proficiency degree on 3D Max, hand-drawings, modeling and mold techniques.

Subject Content

This subject contents facilate the coordination between art and science for re-construct the facial expression of an unidentified skull, or the skeleton with specific techniques.

Aims of Subject

The aim of the subject is to emphasis of the sculpture techniques on facial reconstruction works.

Learning Outcomes

Textbook and/or Sources

The participants shall obtain the ability, attitude and manner of scientific research and applications. Implement the forensic facial reconstruction applications. C. Wilkinson I “Forensic Facial Reconstruction” Cambridge University Pres, 2004, ISBN-13: 9780521820035, C. Wilkinson “Forensic Human Idendıfıcatıon” (Edited by Sue Black, Tim Thomson ISBN: 978-0-8493-3954-7 J. Prag and R. Neave “Making Faces” British Museum Press, 1999 Ulbricht, Aka S, Şakul U (2007) Anatomıcal facıal reconstructıon technıque applıed to an Unrecognısable case for ıdentıfıcatıon. Ankara: turkish journal of forensic sciences, 6(1): 65 – 70 Akaş C, (2002) Yazın,Sanat, Düşünce Dünyalarından Zamandışı Haberler “Fotoğraf Mı Resim mi” v:3/pg:165 Buyurgan S, Mercin L (2005) Görsel Sanatlar Eğitiminde Müze Eğitimi Ve Uygulamaları. Ankara: Görsel Sanatlar Eğitimi Derneği Pres. Kurkcuoğlu1 A, Şimşek E. K, Uyel Y (2009) The techniques and ımportance of The facial tissue thickness measurements Dirim tıp gazetesi İstanbul; yıl: 84 sayı: 4 (125-132) Acpo (assocıatıon of chıef police officers), Npıa (natıonal polıcıng ımprovement agency) (2009) Facıal ıdentıfıcatıon guıdance press NPIA: UK Wilkinson C, Neave R (2003) “The reconstruction of a face showing a healed wound” Journal of Archaeological Science. Manchester, UK If Applicable put a mark of X

Percent (%)

X

30

Project

X

10

Essay

X

10

Laboratory

X

10

Evaluation Criteria

1.

Intermediate exams

Quiz Coursework

Others Final Exam

Tutor of Subject WEEKS

Week 1

X

40

1. Aysun Altunöz YONUK Ass. Prof. Ph. D. (sculpture)

1.

Topics

Definition of the subject and presentation of terminology. The content of the first week’s program contains the definition and terminological presentation of Facial Reconstructing. The terms and concepts which are going to be used during the lesson should be presented to the student via visual presentations Sampling and examining the Hyper-realist Sculptures and facial reconstruction works and Analyzing the domestic and international samples.

180

Week 2

The program of the second week consists the examination of related national and international facial reconstruction works and hyperrealist sculptures. The topic should not be limited by forensic facial reconstructions, but the examples of the historic reconstructions should be visually explained Collecting data and establishing student working groups.

Week 3

Implementing the working plan of the Museum (MTA Museum ) In the third week’s program should contain the grouping of students and data collecting. Trainer should form groups which gained technical accessories. These groups should not contain less than 3 people. Trainer should pay attention to gather together the students who will be able to work together and support each other technically. MTA Nature History Museum should be selected as the workplace and a working scale should be formed. The working schedule should be formed regarding the post graduate sculpture students. Purpose is to train expert forensic sculpturor.

Week 4

Preparing visual images with 3D Max and evaluating drawings. Drawing education, two and three dimensional visuals would be generated in the computer environment. During these weeks, gender, age and skull inspections the identification of physical defects and getting together the missing parts are the necessary preparations for application.

Week 5

Preparing visual images with 3D Max and evaluating drawings. Drawing education, two and three dimensional visuals would be generated in the computer environment. During these weeks, gender, age and skull inspections the identification of physical defects and getting together the missing parts are the necessary preparations for application.

Week 6

Collecting data and materials before application. The main purpose of this week’s program is to make students ready for the application as well as the collection of the data and necessary materials before the application. Trainer should check the all sign sticks on duplicated models before starting to application.

Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Project implementations (Facial Reconstruction) Modeling works will continue with clay for the next three weeks. The attention point is keeping the clay moisturized all the time. But plaster is the best material for this purpose. Project implementations (Facial Reconstruction) Modeling works will continue with clay for the next three weeks. The attention point is keeping the clay moisturized all the time. But plaster is the best material for this purpose. Project implementations (Facial Reconstruction) Modeling works will continue with clay for the next three weeks. The attention point is keeping the clay moisturized all the time. But plaster is the best material for this purpose. Project implementations (Facial Reconstruction) Modeling works will continue with clay for the next three weeks. The attention point is keeping the clay moisturized all the time. But plaster is the best material for this purpose.

Week 11

Mold –Pattern Works (stripping) This week every group is responsible to pattern their own facial reconstruction works. They will take the outer pattern with the usage of the skills learned in sculpture techniques lessons. Student can use either dead patterns or copying patterns. But student should be encouraged to use silicon material.

Week 12

Molding-Founding Works. Shaping in a mold. This week the molding (polyester or silicone founding) should take place. It should be important to make molding with light and durable material. All student groups should roughcast the inner surface of their prepared patterns with proper material.

Week 13

Special Effects and accessories implementations. Special effect and accessories applications. Coloring effects are applied on polyester. All accessory and effects are applied on this surface. Many kind of effects Hair, mustache, pinions, fluffs, shags, quills, eyebrows, eyelash, nevuses, blot, cicatrix, eyeglasses, nails, eyes, tooth etc should be used properly.

Week 14

Special Effects and accessories implementations. Special effect and accessories applications. Coloring effects are applied on polyester. All accessory and effects are applied on this surface. Many kind of effects Hair, mustache, pinions, fluffs, shags, quills, eyebrows, eyelash, nevus’s, blot, cicatrix, eyeglasses, nails, eyes, tooth etc should be used properly.

The main reason behind this situation is the lack of qualified personnel in this field. The training of qualified forensic medical personnel within universities and educational institutions is a very important necessity. It is also important to remember while forensic sculpturing training involves the same principals and techniques with plastic arts education, forensic sculpturing requires further highly specialized education on a number of levels.

the reconstruction of the primate skulls (fig.4) of the Natural History Museum and this will be followed by the reconstruction of Elephas Maxima Asurus (fig.5) (the Maraş Elephant)..

As a result, there are plans to run a course to be called ‘Facial Reconstruction’ within the postgraduate program of the Gazi University Faculty of Fine Arts and Sculpture Department. This course will be run by expert sculptors, forensic anthropologists, paleontologists and biologists. The purpose is to add value to the research and work conducted between the above disciplines by the sharing of skills and information. The first objective will be

Week 1

The course program The 14 weeks of the program contents are shown in Table 1.

The first week will include the definition and terminological presentation of facial reconstruction. The terms and concepts used will be delivered to the student via visual presentations. Facial reconstruction is defined broadly, including reidentification reconstruction and facial features. Medical identification training includes biological identification,

181

SOMA 2010 covering aging, gender, race, height, eye colour, hair type, facial features, tissue depth, etc. Two dimensional drawings and computer-assisted drawings will make it simpler to understand. Three dimensional usages then provide realistic images and facilitate eventual sculptural work. Restoration is defined and explained by visual examples. Hyperrealism: The meaning and the historical progress of hyperrealism and the works of the hyperrealist sculptors such as Ron Mueck will be examined. Hyperrealism is the genre of painting and sculpture resembling high-resolution photography and may be considered as an advancement of photorealism. The term was primarily applied to an independent art movement and art style in the United States and Europe that has developed since the early 2000s. The techniques and works of hyperrealist sculptors such as Ron Mueck, Duane Hanson and Paul Thek will be examined during the course. Week 1 modules Primates: Within this lesson the physical structure of primates is examined and the comparisons with human anatomy made. Paleontology: Is defined briefly and the contributions of paleontologists explained. Forensic paleontology is also outlined. Anthropology: Is defined briefly and the contributions of anthropologists explained. Information on forensic anthropology is also outlined. ‘Physical anthropology examines the differences and similarities between different groups of people by the way some of them analyze the structure of the human body. Anthropology divided in to three groups; Ethnology, Anthropometry, Kraniometri.’ (Buyurgan, Mercin 2005: 14). ‘The Golden Ratio’: This important element of artistic composition is defined and explained using visual materials. Anatomy: Is defined and explained in elementary terms by visual materials. The topic includes drawing skeletal and muscle structures. Facial Reconstruction (Medical) Facial reconstruction (medical identification) is explained in historical terms and techniques. ‘Facial reconstruction has been employed within the field of archaeology for over a century. One of the earliest exponents was Kollman, who worked with the sculptor Buchly to reconstruct the face of a woman from the Stone Age.’ (Wilkinson and Neave 2002: 1344). Facial reconstruction is a multi-disciplined area encompassing two- and three-dimensional approaches.

Table 2 Basic descriptive statistics for the measurements (Cavanagh, D. And Steyn, M., 2011:4, Forensic Science International).

A –supra-glabella B –glabella

150 152

Mean (in mm) 4.7 6.3

C –nasion D –endofnasals E –lateralnasal F – lateral supra G–mental tubercle H-mid-philtrum I – mid upper lip margin II – upper inciso J – mid lower lip margin JJ – lower incisor K– supra-mentale L–mental eminence M- beneath chin N–frontal eminence O–fronto-temporale P – supra-orbital Q – sub-orbital R– zygomaxillare S – lateral zygomatic arch T – supra-glenoi U – area of the parotid V–mid-masseteric W – gonion X –supraM2 Y –subM2

141 132 148 59 17 138 121 118 95 99 91 64 42 148 148 148 140 83 151 151 145 128 26 72 25

6.0 2.7 4.3 10.2 12.6 10.9 13.3 10.3 14.7 13.4 12.2 10.6 6.7 4.8 4.6 6.8 6..9 18.7 8.4 12.0 19.5 22.4 17.9 30.1 21.7

1.552 0.975 1.132 1.672 2.713 1.409 1.761 1.958 1.912 1.673 1.988 1.910 1.455 1.256 1.348 1.371 2..374 3.427 2.767 2.188 3.689 3.708 4..353 4.431 4.254

7.1 2.7 39 – 10.8 14.3 0.0 16.1 13.9 10.8 10.0 6.1 4.3 4.6 6.5 9.0 11.3 15.6 29.3 -

Z – occlusal line

44

21.6

3.930

22.2

MEASUREMENTS

n

1.185 1.287

Mode (in mm) 4.1 5.1

AD

Basic descriptive statistics (n=samplesizeforeachmeasurement; SD=standarddeviation; min.=minimum; max.=maximum).

Forensic sculptors are interested in three-dimensional facial construction techniques. A reconstruction is made by a combination of three-dimensional computer images, photographs and two dimensional-drawings. ‘Medical identification made by facial reconstruction, is a technique which focuses on human remnants which are unable to be reconstructed by other known techniques and the defining the face shape by the size of the skull. By the use of this identification technique; identification on criminal cases, recording of face traumas and archiving processes are made by building three dimensional busts and masks.’ (Aka and Şakul 2006: 2). Three-dimensional medical identification applications include not only the techniques learned during sculpture technique lessons but also include definition of tissue depths. Data on soft tissue depths is available from live models and cadavers. Techniques for the identification of tissue depths go back to the 1800s. ‘The founder of this technique Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov (1907-1970) has combined anthropology, archaeology and forensic sciences and produced famous facial reconstructions of Timur Lenk and Ivan The Terrible.’ (Aka and Şakul 2006: 2) Gerasimov used an anatomical approach to facial reconstruction and modeled each facial muscle on to the skull individually (Wilkinson and Neave 2002: 1343) 182

Aysun Altunöz Yonuk: A multidisciplinary study: facial reconstruction Facial Tissue Depth Identification In this course module the equipment and techniques used in tissue depth identification are defined and a scale of tissue depths provided to students (Table 2). The lesson includes workshops and the examination of different tissue depths, including recent technological advances. For example it is now possible to take tissue depth readings using cephalometry, computer tomography and magnetic resonance (Kürkçüoğlu and Şimsek 2009: 127). For mummy and fossil scans, the use of technological screening methods gives clear and precise measurements without damage. Point Identification In human skull modelling it is possible to identify tissue depths in certain key points (figs. 7 and 8). Anatomically the number of these important points can vary between 16 and 30 by the use of computer (3-D) modeling (fig.9). In facial reconstruction work the placing of the points is defined by recognized measurements based on the ‘The Golden Section’ technique and the tissue depths for these points are measured by applying thin rubber ‘sticks’ or ‘pins’ on the model. Duplicating the model The above sculptural techniques are then applied to a real modelling example, based on copies of primate skull from the range housed in the Natural History Museum (MTA) (fig.10). This modelling process is an important component of the reconstruction course and is carried out in student teams. The model for duplication is based on a pattern made from silicon taken from the original skull. The outer surface of the silicon is stabilized with gypsum plaster. Once set, first the outer pattern then the silicon pattern are separated and the pattern is again moulded with gypsum, white cement and polyester. Modelling Duplication work continues in the workshop using clay or plaster, bearing in mind the anatomical details and tissue depth data. To do this, the position of the duplicated model is important. The model is then prepared in the ‘Frankfurt Horizontal State’ (fig. 11), arranging the same level of ear canal and eye sockets. Silicon sticks/pins are then emplaced on the proper points on the models. The next steps after this are the patterning and moulding techniques. Patterning and Moulding Techniques ‘The technique of facial reconstruction is a valuable tool in the forensic investigation of archaeological specimens and can help to establish facial appearance in unusual circumstances, such as facial trauma, pathological conditions and disease and facial deformity.’ (Wilkinson and Neave 2002: 1347). To this end it is important to create a ‘hyperrealist’ model and students must be trained in the

use of colour and visual effects (fig.12) to capture race, gender and age features, as well as facial hair, scarring, etc. Material instruction All common materials involved in reconstruction techniques need to be defined widely and explained in the workshop applications. Health and safety issues are also addressed. Silicone: This material (liquid, resin, or elastomeric) is the key material for patterning and molding processes. Polyester: This material (primarily unsaturated polyesters (UPR) is commonly used in the molding process. Colouring and accessorizing can be applied on this material. Fiberglass: Glass-reinforced plastic (GRP), also known as glass fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP), is a fiber reinforced polymer made of a plastic matrix reinforced by fine fibers made of glass. It is a common material used in modelling to provide both flexibility and strength. Resin: Resin is a natural material, a hydrocarbon secretion of plants, particularly coniferous trees. It is a valuable polishing material used for colouring before painting process, or it can be used with the painting process. Week 2 This second week features on the examination of related national and international facial reconstruction works and hyperrealist sculptures. The topic should not be limited to forensic facial reconstructions, and examples of historic reconstructions should be visually explained. Ron Mueck’s sculptures should feature in particular as the objective is to combine hyperrealist working techniques with facial reconstruction technique. Week 3 The third week of the program focuses on student group formation and data gathering. These groups should ideally be of 3 or more students and comprise a balanced mix of ability. The MTA (Natural History Museum) will feature as the selected working environment. A work schedule aimed at the training (at postgraduate level) of expert forensic sculptors is prepared, along the following lines: Museum Work Schedule 1- Museum Guide a) History of MTA (Natural History Museum) b) Presentation of sections c) Communication and transport information 2- Student Performance Scale a) Control list (used by the trainer when marking students according to ability and performance) [Table 3]

183

SOMA 2010 Table 3 Control scale (Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). CONTROL SCALE Explanation: The following criteria carried out or unrealized by the students put the mark (X) related box Student Name-Surname: Date Form: Number: Characteristics of Skull or Skeleton The technique to be applied CRITERIONS 1. Student came providently for the course

Yes

2.

Students brought the appropriate materials and equipments

3.

Student use the material appropriate

4.

Student use the methods and techniques correctly

5.

Student worked clean and tidy

6.

Student didn’t waste the materials

7.

Student released appropriate products to the subject

8.

Student brought the reconstruction ready to exhibit

9.

Does the product submitted to the necessary disciplines provides

10.

The reconstruction is original.

b) Preliminary test (minimum 10 questions; theory test without lesson support) [Table 4] c) Final test (minimum 10 questions for the theoretical test in the final week) [Table 5] d) Visitor paper (5-10 questions to assess the students’ practical experience of the museum during their visits) [Table 6] e) Evaluation form (10 questions to measure the students’ ability of the test application) [Table 7] 3- Trainer Aims a) Cognitive a.1. Cognitive level a.2. Comprehension level a.3. Practical level a.4. Analysis level a.5. Synthesis level b) Affective b.1. Comprehension b.2. Reaction b.3. Setting Value b.4. Organizing b.5. Qualifying

No

c) Psychomotor c.1. Stimulus response c.2. Guidance c.3. Skill acquisition c.4. Adjustment c.5. Creativity Weeks 4 and 5 Teach two- and three-dimensional representation (including computer assisted programmes). Especial focus is given to features including gender, age, any physical defects or missing details. Week 6 This week concentrates on making students ready for the collection of the data and necessary materials and equipment prior to the application process. These include. 1- Skull model 2- Modelling tools 3- Water spray (to moisten clay)

184

Aysun Altunöz Yonuk: A multidisciplinary study: facial reconstruction Table 4 Preliminary Exam (Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). PRELIMINARY TEST Tutor of Subject: Duration of the Course: Student Name-Surname: Date Form: Number: What do Facial reconstruction, identification, medical identification remind to you? What do you understand about museum training? What are the differences within the concepts of facial reconstruction, identification and medical identification? What kind of relationships can be established between the museum education, sculpture, forensic art, facial reconstruction?

Table 5 Final Exam (Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). LAST TEST Tutor of Subject: Duration of the Course: Student Name-Surname: Date Form: Number: What does facial reconstruction, medical identification, forensic, biological identification mean? What do you know about museum education? Write the similarities and differences between the museum education and the medical identification, forensic, biological identifications. What are the similarities and the differences between the forensic sculpture and sculpture? What are the methods of working on a duplicate model? What are the methods of working on facial reconstructions?

185

SOMA 2010 Table 6 Visitor Survey (Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). VISITOR PAPER Tutor of Subject: Duration of the Course: Student Name-Surname: Date Form: Number: What is your opinion about the museum that you have visited? What are the differences between this museum and the others? Write your opinions about the dinosaurs and the other skeletons. What are the records about the facial reconstructions in this museum? What are the technical solutions about the facial reconstructions that you saw in this museum

Table 7 Questions (Program of Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Art, Master’s Degree. Gazi University, Fine Arts Faculty, Sculpture Department). QUESTIONS Student Name-Surname: Date Form: Number: 1* What kind of techniques did you learn about facial reconstruction? 2* Which technique had been used for reconstruction of King Midas? 3* What are the important examples about facial reconstruction in your country? Write their names, techniques and locations. 4* Where does the reconstruction of Princess Carian exhibit? 5* What kind of museum is MTA museum? 6* What is the importance of using accessories during reconstruction? 7*What did you learn about American, Russian and Combined techniques? Write some differences between them. 8*What are the similarities between forensic artist and sculptor? 9* Do you want to be a forensic sculptor, why?

186

Aysun Altunöz Yonuk: A multidisciplinary study: facial reconstruction Armature (to fasten skull) Damp cloth and nylon Tissue-depth scale Anatomical drawings with 2D and 3D visuals drawn from different perspectives. 8- Clay and plasticine 4- 5- 6- 7-

Weeks 7 to 10 Modelling work continues in this period using plasticine or moist clay.

Week 11 In this week every group patterns (moulds) their own facial reconstruction project. They form the outer pattern using the skills learned in the sculpture techniques lessons. Student can use either disposable patterns, or copy patterns, using silicon material. Week 12 This week looks at moldings (polyester and silicon). Students prepare rough casts of surfaces based on prepared forms. The following materials are explained: a) Separators (polishing wax applications to inner surfaces using small brushes) b) Jelly coat (‘gel-coat’ or ‘jelly coat applications. Inner surfaces are lightly covered). c) Fiberglass (applied in 2 or 3 layers to a mould using a strong brush. Polyester is used to fix the fiberglass). d) Polyester applications to inner surfaces. Hardened polyester is then removed and the separate parts of the model are assembled, the joins smoothed and polished out.

Weeks 13 and 14 These will concentrate on special effects and accessory applications. Colouring effects are applied on polyester, as are all accessories and other effects, including hair, nails, eyes, teeth, etc. Health and safety considerations are also taught. Conclusion After this course of nearly 4 months’ duration, the students are examined on theory and application and will have a grounding in all applications of reconstruction and the additional skills of coordination, teamwork, technical materials usage and many other attributes that will inevitably benefit museums and the archaeological sciences generally. References Aka, S., and Şakul, U. (2007) ‘Anatomical Facial Reconstruction Technique Applied to an Unrecognizable Case for Identification.’ Turkish Journal of Forensic Sciences, 6, 65–70. Akaş, C. (2002) ‘Yazın Sanat, Düşünce Dünyalarından Zamandışı Haberler “Fotoğraf Mı Resim mi”’. Ares 3, 165. Buyurgan, S., and Mercin, L. (2005) Görsel Sanatlar Eğitiminde Müze Eğitimi Ve Uygulamaları. Ankara: Görsel Sanatlar Eğitimi Derneği Press. Kürkçüoğlu, A. and Şimşek, E.K., and Üyel, Y. (2009) ‘The Techniques and Importance of Facial Tissue Thickness Measurements.’ Dirim tıp gazetesi 4, 125-132. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), NPIA (National Policing Improvement Agency) (2009) Facial Identification Guidance. NPIA: UK Wilkinson, C. and Neave, R. (2003) “The reconstruction of a face showing a healed wound” Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1343-1348. Cavanagh, D. and Steyn, M. (2011) ‘Facial reconstruction: Soft tissue thickness values for South African black females’. Forensic Science International.

187

SOMA 2010

Figure 1 Reconstruction of Tutankamun (http://susilo. typepad.com/nurani/2007/11/behind-the-mask.html, 01.03.2011)

Figure 2 Tomb of King Midas (www.

websters-online-dictionary.org/.../Midas,

01.03.2011)

Figure 3 Reconstruction of the Carian Princess (www.bodrummuseum.com/.../carian_princess. htm 27.02.2011; From the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology)

Figure 4 A primate skull from the collection of the Natural History Museum, Ankara, used for facial reconstruction (Natural History (MTA) Museum, Ankara, Turkey) 188

Aysun Altunöz Yonuk: A multidisciplinary study: facial reconstruction

Figure 5 Elephas Maxima Asurus (‘Elephant of Maraş’) (Natural History (MTA) Museum, Ankara, Turkey)

Figure 6 Measuring tissue depth (http://www.

askaforensicartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/

IMG_3090.jpg, 27.02.2011)

Figure 7 Frontal view points for

Figure 8 Lateral view points for measurements Cavanagh and Steyn 2011)

or location of tissue depth (after

measurements or location of tissue depth (after

Cavanagh and Steyn 2011)

Figure 9 3-D computerization (after Wilkinson 2010: 237)

189

SOMA 2010

Figure 10 Primate skull (Natural History (MTA) Museum, Ankara, Turkey)

Figure 11 Model showing ‘Frankfurt Horizontal State’ (Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey)

Figure 13 Reconstruction of Allosaurus (Natural History (MTA) Museum, Ankara, Turkey)

Figure 12 Richard Neave’s reconstruction of a face based on skull fragments from

35,000

years ago. (httpwww.zhs41.

nethistoryafricannefertiti.htm,

28.2.2011)

190