Kibyra’da Bulunan Taşçı Mezarı Kaidesi
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 1-13 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213706
Summary This paper deals with a relief block unearthed during the excavations at Kibyra depicting a group of toolsused by the stonemasons of the period. The block is an example of a rare group of reliefs traditionalised in the Roman Imperial period depicting stonework tools within the burial context in Anatolia. It is identified as a base belonging to one of the ostothek types commonly found in the city. Depictions of professions on tomb stelae were scarce in the Hellenistic Period; however, the craftsmen began to be commemorated with their profession and relief depictions as well as inscriptions on their tombs in the Roman period. Funerary stelae of craftsmen in Anatolia emerged during the Hellenistic Period and increased with the Roman Imperial Period. These stelae depict craftsmen either practicing their craft or showcasing the tools essential to their professions. The information that material evidence provided on this subject is limited since they are relatively scarce in archaeological contexts. The reason lies in the nature, condition, and find spot of these materials. Iron artefacts, essential hand tools related to daily life, are generally found covered with a dense layer of corrosion. On the other hand, tools made of copper alloy have relatively been better preserved due to the nature of the alloy. Therefore, the vase paintings and reliefs form the most crucial evidence, following the material evidence to classify and describe the tools used by ancient craftsmen. Tomb reliefs from the Roman period reflect the new social understanding stemming from urbanisation and the economic prosperity of craftsmen and traders. During this period, craftsmen highlighted their profession and identified themselves by depicting their tools as if their attributes on funerary stelae. Comprehensive studies based on these depictions that became widespread, especially in the Imperial Period, allowed scholars to classify the tools on reliefs according to professional groups; among these groups, depictions related to builders and stonemasons hold particular significance. Gaining momentum after G. Zimmer’s study, four decades of archaeological research have continued to find unique examples related to the subject. The tool depictions on the base from Kibyra serve as a well-preserved example and contribute new insights into life in antiquity by encapsulating the essence of a stonemason/architect/ engineer’s life to the present through simple designs. Art, as a means of expression for occupational groups within societal strata, allows craftsmen to assert their existence in life and beyond. It is noteworthy that stonemasons among the craftsmen endeavouring to express themselves since antiquity continued to depict their lifelong professions with pride on their graves. This continuity of traditions, evident in various aspects of daily life, underscores the timeless essence of traditions among craftsmen.
PDF indirİndirmek için tıklayınız.
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 14-28 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213751
Fibulae first appeared at the end of the Late Bronze Age. For a long time, the scientific world was puzzled by the question of where and when they first appeared. Today’s research and studies show that the product in question appeared in south-eastern Europe in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C., spread to the Mediterranean basin with waves of migration, and suddenly, different types of products appeared in different geographical areas. Fibulae, at first functional, served as a means of fastening clothing; however, their meaning and use changed over time. Fibulae, which Muscarella likens to “social identity cards” in the Iron Age, have indeed become a significant source of data for the distinction of nations in the Iron Age Mediterranean world, which is in the process of globalisation. It is well known that fibulae, which were associated with men in the Eastern world and with women in the West and which were transformed over time from an ornament to an object of prestige, acquired religious significance thanks to the thousands of fibulae that were presented as votive offerings in Aegean-Mediterranean temples and sanctuaries. A small group of fibulae in the Izmir Archaeological Museum is the subject of this study. The small group, which is to be introduced as an important subtype, consists of examples known in the literature as the Anatolian- Phrygian type. They belong to four subgroups of Type XII in the typology and are generally compatible with Western Anatolian examples dating between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. The mass production of fibulae in Anatolia began with the Phrygians. It is known that common examples of fibulae of the Phrygian type, the first examples of which appear in the middle of the 9th century BC, were produced until the end of the 7th century BC. Gordion is the most important site for Phrygian-type fibulae. Although the large number of fibulae found here, especially in the area of the royal necropolis, supports the idea of on-site production, it should be kept in mind that no fibula mould has yet to be found at Gordion. Despite the notable absence at Gordion, there is evidence that Phrygian-type fibulae were widely used and produced in many parts of Anatolia during the Iron Age. Anatolian-Phrygian type fibula moulds found in Kaman Kalehöyük, Smyrna, Sardeis, Miletos, Elmalı and waste production samples from Nif are extremely valuable as they reflect that Phrygian type of fibula production took place in a very wide geographical area. Apart from these, many examples found in Ephesos and Miletos suggest that these places may also have been a production centre, but there is no definitive evidence to confirm this claim. A small group of fibulae in the Izmir Archaeology Museum is the subject of this study. The small group that is intended to be introduced as an important subtype consists of examples known as the Anatolian-Phrygian type in the literature. The works belong to four subgroups of the type called XII in the typology. These are generally compatible with Western Anatolian examples, dating back to the 8th-6th centuries BC.
İndirmek için tıklayınız.
Tarihöncesi Arkeolojisinde Teknik-Nesne, Teknik-Bellek, Teknik Değişkenlik ve Zamansallık Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler: Tekno-Tipolojiden Tekno-Genes’e Doğru Geçiş?
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 29-41 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213799
Research on prehistoric chipped stone tools, which has been the subject of many studies for many years, has created a new field of study with the emergence of technical anthropological/ethnological approaches since the 1960s. In this process, research methods have undergone a new change, especially with the influence of structural anthropology and ethno-archaeology, while experimental archaeology has also provided significant support on the identification criteria, interpretation efforts and experimental protocols of the lithic industries. Particularly in the late 1980s, new problematics related to the cycles of transformation, change and development of the chipped stone industries emerged in many countries, especially in France, following new theoretical and interpretative working methods developed around G. Simondon’s technical philosophy. In the following period, it is seen that many issues, such as the role of prehistoric chipped stone tool industries in the formation and change of the individual and any community, have been reopened to discussion and interpreted through technical concepts in addition to the typological interpretation method. This working method, called techno-typology, continues today. Furthermore, since the 2000s, studies on prehistoric chipped stone tool production have focused more on the discussion of four distinct concepts based on typological concepts and methodological practices on tool industries: technique, memory, alterity, and temporality. In addition to this, it is thought that there are three distinct concepts of temporality in the structure of the technique-object in prehistoric times. These are defined as the temporality of the structure of the technique, the temporality of the origin of the technique, and the temporality of the trajectory of the technique, each of which is thought to contain a memory of technical origin that is essentially an epiphylogenetic (epiphylogenesis) memory. At this point, according to some scholars, “technique” is first and foremost defined as a memory. However, as mentioned above, in the study of prehistoric chipped stone tool production, the so-called techno-typology focuses on the discussion of four different concepts based on typological concepts and methodological applications on chipped stone tool industries: technique, memory, alterity and temporality. These are discussed in terms of technique, typology, and time. In order to interpret the phenomena of transition or rupture in the material culture objects that we observe in a collection, we need to select temporalities in which certain events, especially remarkable climatic periods, took place, and in this context, we need to construct temporality charts in technical and typological terms. In the techno-genèse approach, the tool is an artefact within a technical system, i.e. the result of a chain of operation/production. The core is a bulk/content and one or more useful production surfaces. In this context, this research method seeks to understand the technical capacity of an artificial object from its external appearance. The main aim of this method of study is undoubtedly to move the tool beyond the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory of development with the help of standard technical and typological concepts and definitions and to examine it in more detail and in a multifaceted way, i.e. it is a problematic of Techno-Logique origin and centre. In this research method, chipped stone tool production methods are analysed through different concepts such as technical-object, technical-memory, technical-logic, technical variability and temporality, and prehistoric tools (technical-objects) aim to develop a multidimensional examination system/method with the help of standard technical and typological concepts and definitions and focus more on techno-logique problematics. The approach presented in such studies is called technogenetics because it combines technology with ontology, as seen in the chipped stone industries. However, the three concepts mentioned in this research method are the main concepts that support the whole epistemological structure of the techno-genetic approach. On the other hand, in archaeology (prehistoric archaeology), the classification and grouping of artefacts of cultural value are undoubtedly based on the use of certain types or morphologies. Technotypological definitions, fed by comparisons, are coded as classifications supported by chronologically reliable sequences. In this context, techno-typology is accepted as the main argument for the classification of prehistoric chipped stone tools. However, the most important problem here is that the common denominators between the technical memory of each tool, which we call the technical-object, and the tool are not taken into consideration too much. These criteria are the main arguments put forward to express the original character of the idea of producing a tool for a specific purpose. However, the somatic dimension of the human being (cognitively-biologically) is the main point to be concretely incorporated in the reinterpretation of cultural evolution through the reintegration of chipped stone products. This method of interpretation can also be defined as the restoration/restitution of the technical characteristics of the tools.
Ankara’da Özel Bir Koleksiyondan Cam Yağ ve Koku Şişeleri
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 42-59 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213832
The earliest evidence of perfume and oil production dates back to the Bronze Age, with vessels made of various materials such as ceramic, metal, faience, and glass used to preserve these products. From the 6th century BC onwards, core-formed glass perfume and oil bottles produced in the Mediterranean basin spread throughout the ancient world. From the Early Roman Imperial Period on, the production became easier, and various forms were created owing to the development of glass blowing technique. Subsequently, glass perfume bottles became common in daily use. While glass perfume and oil bottles for daily use are generally found in fragments from archaeological contexts, well-preserved examples are uncovered in grave contexts. Glass perfume and oil bottles in the private collection of Mehmet Durmaz, a collector of movable cultural property under the control of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, were acquired through purchase. These glass perfume and oil bottles consist of two miniature bottles (fig. 1.1, 1.2), an aryballos (fig. 1.3), a bird-shaped bottle (fig. 1.4), a prismatic bottle/mercury bottle (fig. 1.5) and various types of unguentaria (fig. 1.6-9, fig. 2.10-18, fig. 3.19-23). Although there is no definitive evidence regarding their place of origin, it has been reported that these bottles were brought from Ankara and its surroundings. The well-preserved condition of these bottles suggests their use as grave goods in antiquity, possibly unearthed during illegal excavations in the necropolis of ancient settlements in Ankara and its surroundings. These bottles, which cannot be contextualised, were dated by analogy. The examples forming the dating criteria are the published vessels from museums, private collections, and archaeological excavations. The majority of the bottle types in the collection were determined to be developed in the eastern centres of the Roman Empire and spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, except for a few examples identified in the western part of the Empire. The similarities between miniature bottles (fig. 1.1, 1.2), a bird-shaped bottle (fig. 1.4), candlestick unguentaria (fig. 14-20) and Eastern Mediterranean examples, especially those from Cyprus, are noteworthy. Furthermore, similar aryballos (fig.1.3) and spool-shaped unguentaria (fig. 3.21-22) are well-represented among the forms found in Anatolia. The collection also includes an example of the prismatic perfume bottle (fig. 1.5) known as Mercury bottles. These mould-blown bottles, which originated from the western part of the empire, mostly bear depictions and inscriptions on the bottoms. However, the bottle in the M. Durmaz collection and a few similar examples published from Anatolia do not bear depictions or inscriptions on the bottoms or sides. The difference suggested that this bottle and other undecorated similar prismatic bottles from Anatolia may be local imitations of examples produced in the western part of the Roman Empire. The unguentaria in different sizes and types form the largest group of the collection. This group mainly covers free-blown, undecorated and simple forms. The sub-groups of unguentaria can be identified based on their typological differences, such as pear-shaped (fig. 1.6-7), ovoid (fig. 1.8-9), conical (fig. 2.10-13), candlestick-shaped (fig. 2.14-18, fig. 3.19-20), spool-shaped (fig. 3.21-22) and spindle-shaped (fig. 3.23) bodies. Among the perfume bottles examined in this study, a candlestick-shaped unguentarium (fig. 3.19) stands out as the most distinguished vessel in the glass section of the collection. Similar examples of this candlestick-unguentarium can be encountered in Anatolian collections, but fig. 3.19 differs from its published counterparts from Anatolia with the “PATRIMONI” inscription on the bottom. This example is believed to have originated in Italy based on the inscription on the bottom, proving it was taxed by the Roman Empire. Thus, this unguentarium, dating back to the 2nd century AD, is particularly valuable as it indicates that Asia Minor should be included in the geographical reach of the perfumed oils. These perfume bottles, in various forms, examined in detail above, offer an inclusive selection as they cover rare examples as well as common types used in Anatolia in antiquity.
Batı Anadolu MÖ 2. Binyıl Yerleşimleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 60-79 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213870
The 2nd millennium BC in Anatolia is better known due to Central Anatolian centres, the large-scale settlements that underwent long-term excavations. The excavations in the mounds of Central Anatolia have uncovered evidence of a period in the Middle Bronze Age that preserved certain cultural elements from the Early Bronze Age III while also introducing new cultural elements. This period also manifested itself in architecture and could be traced through the palaces identified in centres such as Warşama, Hatipler, Sarıkaya, and Karahöyük, indicating a socio-cultural change. J. Yakar associates the presence of palaces in Anatolia with a bureaucratic administrative system, stating that their origins can be traced back to the Early Bronze Age III. The early commercial activities between Anatolia and distant centres imply that not only Central Anatolia but also other regions in Anatolia were likely integrated into this network, either directly or indirectly. The valuable minerals of Western Anatolia such as gold, silver, and copper, must have been transported to Inner Western Anatolia through the Gediz, Bakırçay, Küçük Menderes, and Büyük Menderes valleys, and from there to Central Anatolia through Kütahya, Afyon, and Denizli, as evidenced by the similarities observed in the settlements between the coastal and inland areas. The settlements are indeed believed to be established at a certain distance from each other in mountainous and flat areas and positioned within a possible network of interaction along the trade routes starting from Northern Syria, reaching Central Anatolia, and extending to the Aegean Islands via Troy. The excavations in the northern part of Inner Western Anatolia, from the Eskişehir and Kütahya region to the coast in Troas, have revealed mounds ranging in size from 3 to 45 hectares, alongside Troy. There are centres of over 10 hectares, located at an average distance of 50-70 km from each other between Kütahya and Eskişehir. The transition period evidence from Küllüoba and the Akkadian cylinder seals found in Seyitömer made these settlements stand out in the region. Tavşanlı, with a 45-hectare size, stands as the largest mound in Western Anatolia, and ongoing excavations have the potential to offer a different perspective on Western Anatolian archaeology. Troy, in Troas, is one of the relatively large settlements in the region, covering an area of 27 hectares. The 2.4-hectare Maydos Kilisetepe, surrounded by 2nd millennium BC settlements at an average distance of 25-30 km, is particularly significant. No 2nd millennium BC settlements have been excavated so far in a distance of approximately 280 km between the Troas and the Eskişehir-Kütahya region. However, the significance of both regions implies the presence of several 2nd millennium BC centres within the area between the two regions. Only small-scale settlements ranging from 1 to 5 hectares have been identified by surveys so far. Did the size of settlements in Western Anatolia determine their significance or insignificance? The buildings representing political authority in Northwest Anatolia can generally be traced through the remains of the Seyitömer Mound, the Early Bronze Age III structures, and the buildings in the Late Bronze Age layers of Troy. As a small-scale centre with a size of 2 hectares engaged in commercial relations with the Akkadians, Seyitömer Mound demonstrates that the significance of a settlement did not lie in size. The investigation of the southern part of Western Anatolia indicates that the centres surrounding Afyon and Denizli in the upper part of the Büyük Menderes Basin are noteworthy. Beycesultan, with a size exceeding 35 hectares, is one of the best-researched settlements in the region, covering a palace and temples. The research around the mound revealed settlements surrounding Beycesultan, ranging from 1 to 5 hectares in mountainous and flat areas. Aşağıseyit Mound and Kepir, a mound identified by the surveys approximately 40 km from Aşağıseyit, indicate the presence of strategic settlements. Afyon and the settlements around the city provide significant evidence for the region’s archaeology. These settlements having the potential to offer crucial information are namely Kusura Mound, 2 hectares in size around Afyon; Üçhöyük located 80 km from Kusura; Maltepe and Çataltepe, which are 20-30 km away from each other. The distribution of the mounds abovementioned implies the presence of large-scale settlements along with small-scale fortified settlements with strong defence systems, such as Aşağıseyit Mound, in the Upper Büyük Menderes Basin, along the route to Central Anatolia. Çine Tepecik, a mound of 5 hectares,stands out in the middle part of the Büyük Menderes Basin. The nearby Dedekuyusu and Bahçetepe, at distances of 30 km around Çine Tepecik, are other significant centres in the region. On the southwestern coast of Anatolia, settlements such as Miletus, Ayasuluk, and Kadıkalesi at an average distance of 15 km from each other are encountered. Being buried under ancient cities, these settlements are yet to be fully understood but are still crucial in exhibiting traces of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures along the western coast of Anatolia through the archaeological material. In the central part of western Anatolia, in the area between the Gediz and Küçük Menderes Rivers, settlements around İzmir and Manisa stand out. Among these, Panaztepe, over 30 hectares, and the 25-hectare Kaymakçı Mound are settlements in the coastal and central areas of the Gediz Valley. The settlements ranging in size from 1 to 10 hectares have been identified approximately 30 km around Panaztepe and Kaymakçı. Panaztepe is located 30 km from the centre of İzmir, the distance from İzmir centre to Limantepe is 40 km, and the distance from Limantepe to Çeşme Bağlararası is 40 km. Between these centres, smallscale settlements not over 5 hectares have been discovered. The presence of settlements ranging in size from 1 to 3 hectares at intervals of 5-6 km in the Bornova Plain of the İzmir centre indicates that this area was a significant location for settlements in the 2nd millennium BC. In the Middle Bronze Age, the only building that gives the impression of a royal residence is a multi-roomed building from Panaztepe. Kaymakçı Mound and Bademgediği Hill stand out as the strategic centres surrounded by walls among the settlements representing the Late Bronze Age. The proximity of these settlements to each other must be related to the abundance of water resources and the presence of multiple bays and gulfs on the coast. Almost all the settlements on the coast are defined as harbour cities and provide finds that shed light on long-distance maritime trade.
Septem Artes 2 (2024) 80-88 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11213877
Bu eser 