Archaeometric Studies on the Surface Pottery from Galatian Hilltop Sites

Recent Studies on the Archaeology of Anatolia

Edited by

Ergün LaflıSami Patacı

with the assistance of Gonca Cankardeş-Şenol, Ahmet Kaan Şenol

and Gülseren Kan Şahin

BAR International Series 27502015

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S2750

Recent Studies on the Archaeology of Anatolia

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2015

ISBN 978 1 4073 1411 2

Cover Image: An Achaemenid gem in the Izmir Archaeological Museum (inv. no. 005.641; E. Laflı, 2011).

Printed in England by Digipress, Didcot

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEngland

i

Table of Contents

Part I: Introduction

Preface ................................................................................................................................... 3 Maurizio BUORA

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Ergün LAFLI

Part II: Recent Archaeological Research in Ionia and Mysia

Nif-Olympus Survey and Excavation Project between 2004 and 2010 ................................ 11 Elif Tül TULUNAY

A Site in the Territory of Nif-Olympus: Ballıcaoluk ............................................................. 19 Müjde TÜRKMEN PEKER

Pottery Finds from Nif-Olympus / Nif-Olympos’dan Seramik Buluntular ........................... 27 Mustafa BİLGİN

Metal Finds from Nif-Olympus ............................................................................................ 41 Daniş BAYKAN

The Byzantine Complex at Başpınar .................................................................................... 49 Asnu Bilban YALÇIN

Late Byzantine and Ottoman Pottery from Nif-Olympus ...................................................... 57 Lale DOĞER

Glass Finds from Nif-Olympus ............................................................................................. 71 Üzlifat CANAV-ÖZGÜMÜŞ

Zu den Gemmen aus den Museen von Izmir ......................................................................... 81 Ergün LAFLI

Archaeological Researches on Milesian Agathonisi in the Dodecanese, Greece ................ 95 Pavlos TRIANTAFYLLIDIS

Production Technology of the Ancient Terracotta Beehives on Milesian Agathonisi Island ............................................................................................................................ 105

Ioannis KARATASIOS and Pavlos TRIANTAFYLLIDIS

ii

An Ancient Roofing System from Kastraki on Milesian Agathonisi ................................... 113 Konstantinos SARANTIDIS

Conservation of the Archaeological Finds from Kastraki on Milesian Agathonisi ............ 119 Nektaria DASAKLI, Evangelia MICHOU, and Miranda MOUSTOUCHA

A Hellenistic Plate of Pergamene Production – Typological, Chronological and Archaeometric Analysis ................................................................................................ 127

Sarah JAPP

Part III: Coins, Sculpture and Pottery from Caria, Lycia, Pisidia and Pamphylia

Coins of Carian Cities and Administrators from Lagina and its Territory ........................ 137 Makbule EKİCİ

A New Relief Fragment from the Nereid Monument of Xanthus ........................................ 163 Nazlı YILDIRIM

Early Cnidian Amphora Exports to Alexandria, Egypt ...................................................... 169 Gonca CANKARDEŞ-ŞENOL

New Evidences on the Amphora Production in the Rhodian Peraea during the Early Hellenistic Period ......................................................................................... 193

Ahmet Kaan ŞENOL

Hellenistic Ceramics from the Cellar of the Building Complex on the Tepecik Acropolis at Patara ................................................................................... 203

Erkan DÜNDAR and Gül IŞIN

Hellenistic Mouldmade Lamps at the Museum of Isparta .................................................. 217 Murat FIRAT

Tonlampen aus Seleukeia Sidera in Pisidien ...................................................................... 231 Ergün LAFLI

Some Assessments on European Porcelains from the Citadel of Alanya ........................... 243 Özlem ORAL

Part IV: Classical, Hellenistic and Roman Archaeology in Central and Northern Anatolia

Preliminary Results on the Hellenistic and Iron Age Phases at Oluz Höyük ..................... 255 Şevket DÖNMEZ

A Brief Report on the Pottery of 6th to 1st Centuries BC. from Oluz Höyük ..................... 273 Gözde DİNARLI

Vorläufige Überlegungen zu eine frühklassische Grabstele aus Samsun ........................... 279 Ergün LAFLI

Archaeometric Studies on the Surface Pottery from Galatian Hilltop Sites ....................... 287 Ali Akın AKYOL, Şahinde DEMİRCİ, and Asuman Günal TÜRKMENOĞLU

Cytorus-Cide during the Hellenistic Period ....................................................................... 297 Caner BAKAN and Tevfik Emre ŞERİFOĞLU

Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Nicomedia ................................................................ 305 Emre EKİN

iii

Archaeology of the Southern Black Sea Area during the Period of Mithridates VI Eupator ................................................................................................. 313

Sami PATACI and Ergün LAFLI

Roman and Late Roman-Early Byzantine Coarse Ware from Southwestern Paphlagonia ........................................................................................... 327

Gülseren KAN ŞAHİN and Ergün LAFLI

Part V: Recent Archaeological Researches in Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia

Neolithic Settlements of Şanlıurfa in Southeastern Turkey ................................................ 441 Bahattin ÇELİK

A Latin Military Inscription in the Museum of Elazığ ........................................................ 453 Hadrien BRU

Late Roman Pottery from Dülük Baba Tepesi in Gaziantep .............................................. 457 Eva STROTHENKE

Archaeological Surveys of Ardahan in Northeastern Anatolia in 2013 ............................. 467 Sami PATACI

Fortresses of Ardahan in Classical Antiquity .................................................................... 481 Zekiye TUNÇ

Medieval and Post-Medieval Christian Societies and Architecture in Ardahan ................ 487 Sami PATACI and Levent KÜÇÜK.

5

INTRODUCTION

Ergün LAFLI Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Ortaçağ Arkeolojisi Anabilimdalı Başkanlığı,

Tınaztepe/Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca, TR-35160 Izmir, Turkey <[email protected]>

Map 1: Map of Turkey with represented archaeological sites and museums in this volume (by S. Patacı, 2014).

Turkish archaeology, or better the archaeology of Anatolia, has changed radically since 2005. The state of field archaeology in Turkey is nothing like it was in its earliest phases during the 1920s-1930s. Its focus is now based more on site management, restoration, conservation, and cultural tourism, as required since 2006 by the Turkish General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums. As a result, very few scientific studies on the publication of sites and material studies appear today. Although some recent publications exist, very few of them take Anatolian archaeology as a whole.1 So this collection should be understood as a old-fashioned collection of papers rather than a new-fashioned work. Our intention is to give a brief insight about some sites (map 1) and present their new results as well as materials, especially from the western part of the country.

This volume comprises 35 articles, mostly in English, but some in German and Turkish. Papers in this book are divided into five parts, each dealing with a different area of Asia Minor. It is a book of collected papers from four various sources. Three international minor meetings held 1 An exception is the Besançon conference volume: Bru and Labarre 2014.

in Dokuz Eylül University and organized mainly by myself between the years 2010 and 2011 are published here. The first one was the “International Workshop on Hellenistic Ceramics in Anatolia (4th to 1st century BC)” (figs. 1-2), which was held on October 12-14, 2010 at the Institut français d’Izmir. For this workshop I was assisted by Dr Gonca Cankardeş-Şenol, Dr Ahmet Kaan Şenol (both Izmir), and Mrs Gülseren Kan Şahin (Çanakkale). The major aim of the meeting to bring to light new evidence on Hellenistic pottery studies in Turkey, a subject that has been neglected at the regular Greek Scientific Meetings on the Hellenistic Pottery.2 Our meeting attempted to offer a firm basis for the support of future research concerning Hellenistic ceramics in Asia Minor between the 4th and 1st centuries BC. There were more than 30 participants at the Izmir meeting and focussed especially on field projects in western Asia Minor with regard to their Hellenistic pottery finds.3 Five papers in Parts II and III of this volume were taken from this workshop. After our workshop on November 7-11, 2013, there was a conference by IARPOTHP 2 All the previous meetings and their publications are listed at: <http://hellenistic-pottery.web.auth.gr/-/index.php/en/> (15/01/2015). 3 Abstracts of this meeting are collected in Laflı 2010.

RECENT STUDIES ON THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANATOLIA

6

Fig. 1: Poster of the International Workshop on Hellenistic Ceramics in Anatolia (by A.K. Öz, 2009).

Fig. 2: Participants of the same workshop on the stairs of l’Institut français d’Izmir on October 10, 2010

(by S. Patacı).

Fig. 3: Poster of the International Workshop of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Ceramics in Northern

and Central Anatolia (by G. Kan Şahin, 2011).

Fig. 4: Participants of the same workshop on May 10, 2011 (by G. Kan Şahin).

(International Association for Research on Pottery of the Hellenistic Period) in Berlin about the development of pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial period. I would especially like to thank the Institut français d’Izmir for their hospitaliy, especially Mr Jean-Luc Maeso and Ms Dilek Kurt (both Izmir) during this workshop.

On May 10, 2011 a workshop on Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine ceramics in Northern and Central Anatolia (figs. 3-4) was organized by my students, Mrs G. Kan

Şahin and Dr Sami Patacı (Ardahan). The aim of this small workshop was to collect all the information about the previous research on ceramic traditions in the Turkish Black Sea area between the 4th century BC and the 7th century AD. There were around 20 people at this meeting and six papers in Part IV were taken from it.

The Second Ionia Conference (figs. 5-7) was held on May 30 – June 1, 2011. The purpose of this meeting, comprising some 30 participants, was to continue work on Ionian studies, following on from the first Panionion-

E. LAFLI: INTRODUCTION

7

Fig. 5: Poster of the Second International Ionia Conference (by C. Köktürk, 2011).

Fig. 6: Participants of the same conference on June 1, 2011 (by S. Patacı).

Fig. 7: Prof. Lynn E. Roller (Davis, CA), Prof. Marina Yu. Lapteva (Tobolsk) and Ms Eva Mortensen (Aarhus) at the Temple of Athena in Old Smyrna (Bayraklı, Izmir)

on June 2, 2011 (by G. Kan Şahin).

Symposion at Güzelçamlı on September 26 – October 1, 1999, published in 2007,4 and a collection of papers dedicated to Ionia5 and published in the series of “Asia Minor Studien” by the Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Both of the meetings in May and June took place at the Erol Köse Conference Hall of the Faculty of Arts of Dokuz Eylül University. Two major excavations were represented at the Izmir conference: 4 Cobet et al. 2007. 5 Schwertheim and Winter 2005.

Nif-Olympus, directed by Prof. Dr. Elif Tül Tulunay (Istanbul), and Milesian Agathonisi by Dr Pavlos Triantafyllidis (Rhodes).6 In Part II of this volume 13 papers have been included from this conference.

Lastly, some unpublished articles by myself and by Dr S. Patacı, as well as by his team from the Ardahan Regional Archaeological Field Survey Project at the University of Ardahan, were added in Parts III and V.

Most of the articles were written in English; we have added to them an abstract as well as keywords in Turkish. Because time was limited, three articles in German have not been translated into English.

Both Dr Patacı and myself have done several of the editing tasks: the English translations were done by myself; I have also written the abstracts and keywords for each paper. Each paper has a summary in English and Turkish, and they have been accompanied by keywords in both English and Turkish. Plates and page settings were organized by Dr Patacı.

This volume is the third publication in the series Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea. Acta congressus communis omnium gentium Smyrnae and the second publication of the Division for Medieval Archaeology of Dokuz Eylül University. On February 24, 2014 the Dokuz Eylül Research Center of the Archaeology of Western Anatolia (DEÜ-EKVAM), headed by myself was inagurated in Izmir, and this volume represents the first publication of the Dokuz Eylül Research Center of the Archaeology of Western Anatolia (DEÜ-EKVAM).

Several people are to be thanked for their help in this publication: Mrs. G. Kan Şahin has invested lots of time 6 This meeting was presented in detail in Laflı 2011.


8

in this book; I would like to thank her for her constant support, both during the workshop and afterwards. Also at Archaeopress in Oxford, Dr David Davison, Dr Rajka Makjanic, and Dr Gerry Brisch have been, as always, very helpful. Most of the proofreading in English has been carried out by them. This is the third volume I produced with Archaeopress and during my two personal visits to them in January 2013 and July 2014 we were able to speak about various details of this book. I also would like to thank to Dr Maurizio Buora (Udine) and Dr Chris Lightfoot (New York) for their constant support during the preparation phases. Lastly, thanks go to Dr Eva Christof (Graz) to whom we are grateful in terms of German proofreading. I also would like to thank all the participants to these meetings for their co-operation.

This book was prepared between June 2011 and September 2014 mainly in Izmir, Istanbul, London, and Oxford. Since the book went to the printer at the beginning of October 2014, no later literature could be included. All of the authors received their papers for proofreading three times, first in April 2014, second in September 2014, and third in November 2014.

I sincerely hope that this publication will provide a little help in illuminating Anatolian archaeology in its dark ages in the 2010s.

London, January 15, 2015.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

BRU, H. and LABARRE, G. (2014) – L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C. – Ve siècle ap. J.-C.). Colloque international de Besançon – 26-27 novembre 2010 (Besançon 2014).

COBET, J., VON GRAEVE, W., NIEMEIER, W.-D., and ZIMMERMANN, K. (eds.) (2007) – Frühes Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Milesische Forschungen 5 (Mainz 2007).

LAFLI, E. (ed.) (2010) – Abstracts of the International Workshop on Hellenistic Ceramics in Anatolia (4th to 1st cent. BC), October 12-14, 2010 / Izmir, Kubaba. Arkeoloji-Sanat Tarihi-Tarih Dergisi 16, Aralık 2010, 35-52.

LAFLI, E. (2011) – II. Uluslararası Ionia Konferansı. 30 Mayıs-1 Haziran 2011, İzmir, Tarih Okulu 10, Mayıs-Ağustos 2011, 245-250 <http://www.johschool.com/ Makaleler/906032437_20-%20ergunlafl%c4%b1haber.pdf> (15/01/2015).

SCHWERTHEIM, E. and WINTER, E. (eds.) (2005) – Neue Forschungen aus Ionia, Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Asia Minor Studien 54 (Bonn 2005).

287

ARCHAEOMETRICAL STUDIES ON THE SURFACE POTTERY FROM GALATIAN HILLTOP SITES

Ali Akın AKYOL Gazi Üniversitesi, Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi, Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma ve Onarım Bölümü,

Malzeme Koruma Laboratuvarı (MAKLAB), Gölbaşı Kampüsü, Gölbaşı, TR-06830 Ankara, Turkey <[email protected]>

and

Şahinde DEMİRCİ, Asuman Günal TÜRKMENOĞLU

Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Arkeometri Programı, İnönü Bulvarı 122, TR-06531 Ankara, Turkey

<[email protected]> & <[email protected]>

Abstract: In this study, 59 sherds from 22 hilltop sites in ancient Galatia (central Anatolia) have been examined. These archaeometrical studies concern with determination of physical properties, mineralogical and petrographical analyses. Most of the sherds are thought to be common wares for daily usa, because of their porous feature as well as their high water absorption capacity. Smectite, biotite, chlorite and illite types of clay minerals were mainly observed in these examples by XRD analysis. The fact that no high temperature minerals were observed indicates that their firing temperatures should be around 900°C. These sherds can be classified into five main groups according to their mineral and rock fragment contents. Site based ceramic classification can be divided into mainly 2 or 4 sub-groups by analyses of XRD and of thin section optical microscopy. Strong variety among the sherds indicates that these fragments may belong to various cultures or including different raw materials were used in production.

Keywords: Archaeometry, Galatia, Galatian hilltop sites, pottery.

Özet: Galatia Tepe Yerleşimleri’nde Ele Geçen Yüzey Buluntusu Seramiklerin Arkeometrik İncelenmesi: Bu çalışmada, antik Galatia Bölgesi’ndeki 22 tepe yerleşiminden 59 seramik parçası incelenmiştir. Bu arkeometrik çalışmalar, fiziksel özelliklerin belirlenmesi, mineralojik ve petrografik analizleri içermektedir. Su emme kapasitelerinin yüksekliği ve gözenekli yapılarından dolayı seramik parçalarının çoğunun kaba günlük kullanım malzemeleri olduğu düşünülmektedir. XRD analizi ile seramiklerde gözlemlenen kil mineralleri smektit, biyotit, klorit ve illittir. Yüksek sıcaklık minerallerinin gözlemlenmemiş olması pişirme sıcaklığının 900°C civarında olduğuna işaret etmektedir. XRD ve ince kesit optik mikroskop analizleri ile seramik örnekler mineral ve kayaç parçaları yönünden 5 ana grupta, yerleşim bazlı gruplamada ise kendi içlerinde 2-4 alt gruplar halinde sınıflandırılmıştır. Seramik parçalarındaki yoğun çeşitlilik bu parçaların farklı kültürlere ait olduğunu ya da üretimde farklı hammaddelerin kullanılmış olduğunu düşündürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Arkeometri, Galatia, Galatia tepe yerleşimleri, seramik.

Introduction

The first studies on Galatians and the Galatian sites started at the end of the 19th century, and a small number of various studies were published.1 Ancient Galatia (Γαλατία) was an area in the highlands of central Anatolia, in Turkish Provinces of Ankara, Çorum and Yozgat. It was named for the immigrant Gauls from Thrace, who settled here and became its ruling caste in the 3rd century BC., following the Gallic invasion of the Balkans in 279 BC. The capital of Galatia was Ancyra, modern Ankara. In 64 BC. Galatia became a client-state of the Roman empire and in 25 BC. Galatia was incorporated by Augustus into the Roman Empire, becoming a Roman province. Although originally possessing a strong cultural identity the 2nd century AD. the Galatians had become assimilated (Hellenization) into the Hellenistic civilization of Asia Minor and they seem 1 Mitchell 1974, pp. 61-74; Mitchell 1977, pp. 63-104; French 1981; Strobel 1996; Çoşkun 2008; and Arslan 2004.

ultimately to have been absorbed into the Greek-speaking populations of Anatolia.

The inadequacy of research on the Galatian civilizations was one of the most important factors that lead to the launch of the project titled as “Archaeometrical Studies of the Galatian Hilltop Fortifications/Settlements in Central Anatolia”, which was directed by Levent Egemen Vardar and Dr Ali Akın Akyol (figs. 1). The basic objective of the project was to disclose the culture of Central Anatolian Galatians, which found a place of their own among the Phrygian and the Roman cultures, and thus, to build up knowledge towards understanding their identity in Anatolia within the historical process.2

Within the scope of the project, the surveys conducted since 1996 have revealed the existence of more than 90 fortification-settlements within a distance of 10 to 150 km around Ankara (table 1). These settlements, which 2 Vardar and Akyürek Vardar 1998, p. 245-279.


288

Figs. 1: Members of the Research Project Group.

Table 1: Locations of the analysed ceramic samples.

Site Code

Hilltop Sites Its Region

P1 Şeyhali Polatlı – Şeyhali

P2 Beyobası Polatli – Beyobasi

P3 Oğuzlar (Yağır) Polatlı – Oğuzlar

P4 Hisarlıkaya Polatlı – Hisarlıkaya

P5 Çanakçı Polatlı – Çanakçı

P6 Kargalıkale Polatlı – Kargalı

P7 Güreş Polatlı – Güreş

H1 Taşlıkale Haymana – Boyalık

H2 Karacaören Haymana – Karacaören

H3 Gölbek Haymana – Gölbek

H4 Güzelcekale Haymana – Güzelcekale

E1 Edige Elmadağ – Edige

E2 Karacahasan Elmadağ – Karacahasan

E3 Kuşçuali Elmadağ – Kuşçuali

E4 Süleymanlı Elmadağ – Süleymanlı

K1 Çeltikçikale Kızılcahamam – Çeltikçi

D1 Büyükyağlı Delice – Büyükyağlı

Ba1 Üçem Bala – Üçem

Be1 Dikmenkale Beypazarı – Dikmen

Be2 Tabanoğlu

Kalesi Beypazarı – Tabanoğlu

S1 Asarkaya Sincan – Yenikayı

A1 Çanıllı Ayaş – Çanıllı

are usually located in high rocky areas at the height of 1000-1200 meters and shaped like a fortress, have a broad angle of sight, enabling the control of the area, and thus making them advantageous in terms of defense. They are situated either over streams or rivers, or in such a situation that the location is in command of the roads that have been created by river beds and can easily be accessed (figs. 2). During the surveys at the fortifications, in addition to building materials such as building stones, plasters and mortars, many pieces of ceramic sherds were found, and it was possible to collect these materials. The goal of this brief study was to examine and evaluate the ceramic sherds obtained during the survey in archaeometric terms. In this way, it may be possible to keep track of the Galatian remains, which existed over a wide range of time from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period, on the basis of materials (figs. 3).

Material and Methods

In the years 1996 and 1997, surveys were conducted primarily at nine Galatian fortifications in the west and the south of Ankara, where sherds were collected (table 1). Then, in 1998, the first ceramic set were sent to the Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences to be examined within their Archaeometry Program, upon receiving the relevant decision of permission from the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Following this, the archaeometric studies were started.3 3 Demirci et. al. 1999, p. 27-37.

A.A. AKYOL ET AL.:ARCHAEOMETRICAL STUDIES ON THE SURFACE POTTERY FROM GALATIAN HILLTOP SITES

289

Figs. 2: Galatian highland in Central Anatolia.

In addition to the on-going investigations, second set of sherds belonging to 13 fortification-settlements in the east and the south of Ankara (table 1) were collected in the 1998-1999 surveys, and they were also submitted to be analyzed in 2000.4 This research involves the detailed archaeometrical studies and evaluations carried out on 59 sherds as a large set that belong to 22 fortifications.

The examination was started by cataloguing the ceramic sherds according to their regions they were colleced from, on the basis of the settlement (table 1). Most of these sherds belong to the vessels of daily use and that they did not involve any paints, glaze or slip. The colours of the clays are black, gray, brown, red or in-between shades. In most sherds, the traces of the wheel can clearly be seen (figs. 4).

In the study, analyses were conducted to test the water absorption capacity (WAC), porosity (P) and bulk density 4 Akyol et. al. 2002, p. 127-134.

(d) of the sherds to determine their physical characteristics (figs. 5a-b). Standard physical tests were applied in the analyses.5

X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) was applied to determine the mineral structure of the ceramic clay (table 2). For analysis, a Phılıps PW1353/20 model X-Ray Diffractometer was used. The spectrum was taken by executing scanning between 6 and 70 degrees in 2θ, using a nickel filter Co Kα X-Ray beam.6

Thin sections of the sherds were prepared and examined to determine the particle distribution, particle size and the minerals. The examinations were made by using a Nıkon Research Model 104 Optical Microscope, and the microphotographs of the sherds were taken with a magnification of 25 and 100 (figs. 6a-b). 5 Rilem 1980, p. 73. 6 Brindley 1980.


290

Figs. 3: Celtic migrations from Europe to Asia Minor and their settlements in Central Europa as well as Italy.

Discussion

The physical characteristics of the sherds are presented in figs. 5a-b. There are variations in WAC, P and d values both on the basis of region and within the same sites. The P values of the sherds are between 24.1% and 77.3% (ave. 39.1%). The d values range between 1.53 and 1.93 g/cm3 (ave. 1.76 g/cm3). The WAC values of the sherds are between 12.9% and 28.6% (ave. 17.7%). The WAC values display a variation that is in direct proportion to the P values. The BD values, on the other hand, are in inverse proportion to WAC or P values.

According to the XRD results, the basic minerals identified in all sherds are quartz and feldspars, and calcite is also contained in most (table 2). Pyroxenes are determined in some of the sherds (fig. 6a). Hematite (Fe2O3) mineral can be observed especially in the red-coloured sherds (fig. 6b). Hematite in ceramics indicates that the production has been realized in an oxidizing atmosphere. It has been possible to determine clay

minerals of smectite, biotite, chlorite and illite types in the sherds. The absence of high temperature minerals, such as wollastonite and gehlenite, indicates that the firing temperature was not higher than 950C.7

The minerals identified at the thin sections of the sherds, which were prepared in such a way that the whole cross section could be seen, support the XRD results (table 2). After the thin section optical microscopy analysis, the ceramic sherds were classified into five main groups petrographically. These are: the group that contains metamorphic rock pieces (M), the groups that contain volcanic rock fragments, (V-1) and (V-2) groups, clay-marn groups, (K-1) and (K-2). Among the thin section groups, the (M) group constitutes the largest one (44% of all the sherds). The group that involves the smallest number of sherds is the K-2 group, and nearly 5% of the sherds are in this group. Some sherds (such as P11, P12, P22, E31, D11, H13) have the characteristics of more than 7 Rice 1987.


291

Figs. 4: Sherds from Polatlı, Haymana and Kızılcahamam (sherds collected from the sites Gölbek, Karacaören, Boyalık, Güreş, Oğuzlar, Çeltikçikale, Beyobası and Şeyhali).

one group in terms of rock characteristics. These sherds were included in the active rock group that they contained.

The diversity observed in grouping according to each Galatian sites. In this grouping some sub-groups were formed. Within the sherd groups P5, H1, Be1, Be2, S1 and A1, which include a large number of sherds when the number is taken into account, the number of main sub-groups were identified as follows: three in P5, two in H1, two in Be1, four in Be2, three in S1 and two in A1. In groups H3, H4, E1 ve K1, on the other hand, the sherds were in similar characteristics. Groups P3, P7, H2 and E4 were not evaluated as they included one sherd each (fig. 7).

Given that 15 of the 22 fortifications-settlements are located around Polatlı, Haymana and Elmadağ regions, it was believed that the initial evaluations should concentrate on these three regions. The results revealed that the diversity in Polatlı region was wider compared with the regions of Haymana and Elmadağ, which were relatively more homogenous (fig. 7).

Results

The results obtained so far from the analyses conducted on 59 sherds collected from 22 Galatians hilltop sites can be summarized as follows: The physical tests indicated that the mean P value was nearly 39.1%, the WAC was


292

a

b

Figs. 5: Results of the basic physical tests; fig. 5a: water absorption capacity, and; fig. 5b: porosity of ceramic samples.

Figs. 6: Thin section microphotographs; fig. 6a: sample P42: volcanic rock fragments nearby mineral pyroxene in the middle, and; fig. 6b: sample K11: mineral hematite in the middle.

17.7%, and the d value was 1.76 g/cm3. Given that the P (>30%) and WAC of the sherds are very high, and the firing temperature was kept low, it can be asserted that the ceramic sherds studied were parts of terracotta.8 In most of the sherds studied, smectite, biotite, chlorite and 8 Rice 1987.

illite types of minerals were observed in both thin section and XRD examinations. High temperature minerals such as wollastonite and gehlenite were not observed. This suggests that the firing temperature was not higher than 950C, and it was most probably between 800C and 900C.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WA

C &

P (

%)

Ceramic Samples

Galatian Hilltop Sites Survey Ceramic Samples Physical Test[Water Absorption Capacity (WAC%) & Porosity (P%)]

WAC (%) P (%)

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

Bul

k D

ensi

ty (

g/cm

3)

Ceramic Samples

Galatian Hilltop Sites Survey Ceramic Samples Physical Test[Bulk Density (d; g/cm3)]


293

Table 2: The minerals and rock fragments identified by XRD and thin section optical microscopy analyses. Abbreviations: B=biotite, C=calcite, Cl=chlorite, CT=limestone, F=feldspars, Fs=fossil, Fx=ironoxides, G=goetite, H=hematite, Ho=hornblend, I=illite, KT=claystone, MKP=metamorphic rock fragments, Sl=slaite, ST=silt stone, Pl=plagioclase, Op=opaque minerals, Mc=mikritic calcite, Mr=marn, Mk=micas, M= muscovite, P=pyroxenes, Q=quartz, Qs=quarsite, and VKP=volkanic rock fragments.

Samples Minerals

Determined by XRD Analysis

Minerals and Rock Fragments

Determined by Thin Section Analysis

Group No

P1

1 Q,F,C,Mk,Sm MKP,Q,F,Sm

2 Q,F,C,Mk,Sm MKP,Q,F,Mc,H,Sm,

Fs

3 Q,F,C,Mk,Sm MKP,Fx,Sm,Cl

P2 1 Q,C,F,Mk MKP,Mc,Fx,H

2 Q,F,C,Mk F,M,Mk,B

P3 1 Q,F,C,Cl,Mk,H MKP,Q,Fx,F,B,Cl

P4

1 Q,F,G MKP,Qs,Mc,F

2 Q,C,F,P,H,Ho,

G VKP,Q,Mc,Pl,P

P5

1 Q,F,C MKP,Q,Mc

2 Q,F,H,M M,Op,F,Mk,Pl

3 Q,C,F,H,M F,Mc,Mk,Op,Fx

4 Q,C,F,H,M M

5 Q,C,F,H,M Q,Mc,H,Op

6 Q,C,F,H,M M,Op,F,Qs,Mk

P6 1 Q,F,H,Ho,M Q,H

2 Q,F,Ho,H,M MKP,Q,Pl,M,H

P7 1 Q,C,F,Mk,H,Sm MKP,Fx,CT,C,P,Sm

H1

1 Q,F,C,P,B B,H,P,Op

2 Q,F MKP,Qs

3 Q,F,C,H MKP,H

4 Q,F MKP

H2 1 Q,F,C,H,Cl,Mk Q,F,H,P,B,Mc

H3 1 Q,F,Mk,H F,B,H,P

2 Q,F,C,H VKP,F,B,P,Mc

H4 1 Q,F,P,B VKP,Pl,B,P,St

2 Q,F,Ho VKP,Ho

E1 1 Q,F,C,Cl,H,Mk F,Fx,H,B,Mc

2 Q,F,C,Cl,Mk,H Q,Fx,Op,F,H,Cl

E2

1 Q,F,C,Mk,I Mr,Fx,Mk,Mc,I,KT

2 Q,F,C,H,Mk VKP,Fx,F,H,B,Pl,Op,

Mc

Samples Minerals

Determined by XRD Analysis

Minerals and Rock Fragments

Determined by Thin Section Analysis

Group No

E3 1 Q,F,C,H,Mk

VKP,MKP,F,H,P,B,Fx,Mc,Op

2 Q,F,C,Mk MKP,Q,F,Mc

E4 1 Q,C,F,Mk,Sm Q,F,Fx,Mc,Sm

K1 1 Q,F,Mk,H MKP,Q,F,Fx,H,P,M

2 Q,F,H,Mk MKP,Q,F,M

D1 1 Q,F,C,Mk,H Q,F,Mc

2 F,Q,C,H Q,Fx,F,Mc

Ba1

1 Q,F,C,Mk,H VKP,Q,F,H,Pl,B,Sm

2 Q,F,C,Mk MKP,Q,C,M

3 Q,F,C,Mk MKP,C,Pl,B,P,CT

Be1

1 Q,F,C,B,M MKP,B

2 Q,C,F,G,M MKP,Mk

3 Q,F,P Q,Qs,Pl,P

4 F,Q,C,H,M Mk,F,B

5 Q,F,C,P,H,B F

Be2

1 F,Q,B,H,Ho VKP,B,Op

2 Q,F,C,B VKP,Q,Mc,Pl,B

3 F,Ho,F,Q MKP,Pl

4 F,Q,Ho,H MKP,H,Pl

5 Q,C,F,Ho,H Q,Mk

S1

1 Q,C,F,H,M VKP,C,MKP

2 Q,F,H,M VKP

3 Q,C,F,H VKP

4 Q,F,H MKP

5 C,Q,F,Cl,M -

A1

1 Q,F,P,M Mr

2 Q,F,C,P VKP,P,M

3 Q,F,P,M VKP,Q,F,P

4 Q,F Pl,M

The results of the thin section optical microscopy and XRD analyses also indicated that some sherds included hematite mineral. This result suggests that ceramics production was carried out in oxidizing atmosphere for these sherds. In addition, the results of XRD and the thin section analyses showed that the ceramics were classified into five main groups. In the classifications made according to sites, further sub-groups were formed.

Although there were some similarities in the sherds of each settlements, clear differences were determined in some.

Ceramic sherds’ having such different characteristics on the basis of both regions and the settlements can be attributed to the following reasons: they might belong to different cultures; different raw materials might have


294

Fig. 7: A detailed petrographic grouping of the ceramics from the Galatian hilltop sites, classified according to their settlements.

been used to produce them; or internal or external trade relations might have influenced production. In order to identify the Galatian sites better, systematic sampling studies should be continued. Such studies will contribute to revealing the materials used in the Galatian culture and differentiating it from other Central Anatolian cultures.

A Note

All the drawings and photos are produced by the authors in 2014, except fig. 2b and figs. 3.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

AKYOL, A.A., DEMİRCİ, S., TÜRKMENOĞLU, A.G. and AKYÜREK VARDAR, N. (2002) – “Galatia Yüzey Araştırması Malzemeleri Arkeometrik Çalışmaları, II”, in: 17. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, T.C.

Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2763 (Ankara 2002), pp. 127-134.

ARSLAN, M. (2004) – Galater: Die vergessenen Kelten (Scheidegg 2004).

BRINDLEY, G.W. and BROWN (eds.), G. (1980) – Crystal Structures of Clay Minerals and Their X-ray Identifications, Mineral Society, Monograph 5 (London 1980).

COŞKUN, A. (2008) – “Das Ende der ‘romfreundlichen Herrschaft’ in Galatien und das Beispiel einer ‘sanften Provinzialisierung’ in Zentralanatolien,” in: A. Coşkun (ed.), Freundschaft und Gefolgschaft in den auswärtigen Beziehungen der Römer (2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. – 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.), Inklusion/Exklusion 9 (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 133-164.

DEMİRCİ, Ş., AKYOL, A.A., CANER-SALTIK, E., TÜRKMENOĞLU, A., ÖZER, A.M., and AKYÜREK

VARDAR, N. (1999) – “Galatia Yüzey Araştırması Malzemeleri Arkeometrik Çalışmaları, I”, in: 14.


295

Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları 2201 (Ankara 1999), pp. 27-37.

FRENCH, D.H. (1981) – Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc. 1: The Pilgrim’s Road, British Archaelogical Reports, International Series 105 (Oxford 1981).

MITCHELL, S. (1974) – “Blucium and Peium. The Galatian Fort of King Deiotarus”, Anatolian Studies 24, 1974, pp. 61-74.

MITCHELL, S. (1977) – “Inscriptions of Ancyra”, Anatolian Studies 27, 1977, pp. 63-104.

RICE, P.M. (1987) – Pottery Analysis, A Source Book (Chicago, IL/London 1987).

International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM) (1980) –

“Research and Testing”, Materials and Construction 13, 1980, p. 73.

STROBEL, K. (1996) – Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien 1, Geographie des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und historischen Geographie des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien I (Berlin 1996).

VARDAR, L.E. and AKYÜREK VARDAR, N. (1998) – “Galatia Bölgesi Kaleleri / Yerleşmeleri Yüzey Araştırması: Ankara İli 1996”, in: 16. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1, Ankara, 1998, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları 2010 (Ankara 1998), pp. 245-279 < http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/sempozyum_pdf/ arastirmalar/15_arastirma_1.pdf> (15/01/2015).

Documents

Archaeometric Studies on the Surface Pottery from Galatian Hilltop Sites