ADALYA 23 2020 ADALYA...Galena is a common sulfide in hydro- thermal veins in association with...

ISSN 1301-2746

AD

ALYA

23 2020

23 2020

ADALYA

ADALYA

ISSN 1301-274623 2020

(OFFPRINT)

The Annual of the Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations

ADALYA Adalya, a peer reviewed publication, is indexed in the A&HCI (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) and CC/A&H (Current Contents / Arts & Humanities) Adalya is also indexed in the Social Sciences and Humanities Database of TÜBİTAK/ULAKBİM TR index and EBSCO.

Mode of publication Worldwide periodical Publisher certificate number 18318 ISSN 1301-2746 Publisher management Koç University Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Sarıyer / İstanbul Publisher Umran Savaş İnan, President, on behalf of Koç University Editor-in-chief Oğuz Tekin Editors Tarkan Kahya and Arif Yacı English copyediting Mark Wilson Editorial Advisory Board (Members serve for a period of five years) Prof. Dr. Mustafa Adak, Akdeniz University (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Engin Akyürek, Koç University (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Nicholas D. Cahill, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Edhem Eldem, Boğaziçi University / Collège de France (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan, Emeritus, Istanbul University (2016-2020) Prof. Dr. C. Brian Rose, University of Pennsylvania (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Charlotte Roueché, Emerita, King’s College London (2019-2023) Prof. Dr. Christof Schuler, DAI München (2017-2021) Prof. Dr. R. R. R. Smith, University of Oxford (2016-2020)

© Koç University AKMED, 2020 Production Zero Production Ltd. Abdullah Sok. No. 17 Taksim 34433 İstanbul Tel: +90 (212) 244 75 21 • Fax: +90 (212) 244 32 09 [email protected] ; www.zerobooksonline.com Printing Fotokitap Fotoğraf Ürünleri Paz. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Oruç Reis Mah. Tekstilkent B-5 Blok No: 10-AH111 Esenler - İstanbul / Turkey Certificate number: 47448 Mailing address Barbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 22 Kaleiçi 07100 Antalya - TURKEY Tel: +90 (242) 243 42 74 • Fax: +90 (242) 243 80 13 https://akmed.ku.edu.tr E-mail address [email protected]

The Annual of the Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations (AKMED)

Contents

Burçin Erdoğu Capturing the Seen and Unseen in the Beldibi Rock Art ............................................................................................................................ 1

Özlem Çevik – Murat Dirican – Aydın Ulubey – Osman Vuruşkan The Galena Objects from Neolithic Ulucak: The Earliest Metallic Finds in Western Turkey ............................... 7

Abdullah Hacar – K. Aslıhan YenerAnatolian Pot Marks in the 3rd Millennium BC: Signage, Early State Formation, and Organization of Production ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25

A. Tuba Ökse Reflection on the Sunrise Positions in Early and Middle Bronze Age Extramural Cemeteries in Anatolia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 59

Sevgül Çilingir CesurThe Timing of Ritual Performance in Hittite Texts: The “Morning” Rites .............................................................................. 87

Dries Daems Reassessing the Origin of Polis in Lycia and Southwest Anatolia ................................................................................................ 111

Fatma Şahin – Erkan Alkaç Banded Bowls from Tepebağ Höyük (Cilicia Pedias) .............................................................................................................................. 133

Özgün Kasar – Kaan İrenLeaded Bronze Arrowheads at Daskyleion ....................................................................................................................................................... 175

Hazar Kaba An Elite Tomb from Soloi: New Evidence for the Funerary Archaeology of Cyprus .................................................. 205

Erkan Alkaç – Ulus TepebaşThe Gem Stamp on the Handle of a Mushroom-rimmed Amphora from Knidos: An Assessment of the Centauromachy in Terms of Stamps and Iconography ................................................................ 239

Hüseyin Sami Öztürk – Ögül Emre ÖncüOlympos in Lycia: A Novel Assessment of its History and Localization in Light of Recent Archaeological and Epigraphical Research ...................................................................................................................................................... 253

Nihal Tüner Önen Two New Inscriptions from the Claudian Period at Perge ................................................................................................................ 277

Handegül Canlı A Unique Roman Folding Knife Handle with Eagle Ornament from Philadelphia in Cilicia ........................ 289

ContentsIV

Şenkal Kileci – Birol Can A New Honorific Inscription from Blaundos: Tiberius Claudius Lucius, the Priest of Dionysos Kathegemon ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 297

Ahmet Tolga Tek – Hacer SancaktarA Numismatic Riddle from Arykanda: The God of the Water Spring .................................................................................... 311

Mark WilsonThe Discovery of a Menorah in Attalia (Kaleiçi, Antalya) and its Significance for Jewish Communities in Pamphylia .......................................................................................................................................................................... 343

Özgü Çömezoğlu UzbekA North African Plate Unearthed in the Andriake Excavations ................................................................................................. 361

Philip BesEarly Byzantine Pottery from Limyra’s West and East Gate Excavations .......................................................................... 377

Nilgün ElamEcclesiastical Personages of Side (Σίδη) of Pamphylia according to Literary and Sphragistic Data ......... 409

Ömür BakırerWindow Glass from the Excavations in the Seljuk Palace at Alanya ...................................................................................... 451

Mahmut Demir – Terrance Michael Patrick Duggan – Erkan KurulObservations and Assessments of Some Epigraphic Graffiti Found on Entrances in Kaleiçi/Antalya ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 479

Ayşe OzilA Traveller in One’s Homeland: Local Interest in Archaeology and Travel Writing in theOttoman Greek World in 19th Century Anatolia ..................................................................................................................................... 497

Alex Rodriguez SuarezTwo Church Bells from Antalya: Traces of the Religious Soundscape of the Late Ottoman Period ........... 517

ADALYA 23, 2020

* Prof. Dr. Özlem Çevik (correspondence author), Trakya Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, 22030 Edirne, Türkiye. E-mail: [email protected] ; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5442-3744

Dr.MuratDirican,OrtadoğuTeknikÜniversitesi,ArkeometriBölümü,06800Ankara,Türkiye. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9608-2084

Prof.Dr.AydınUlubey,TrakyaÜniversitesi,FenFakültesi,FizikBölümü,22030Edirne,Türkiye. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6046-3582

Asst.OsmanVuruşkan,TrakyaÜniversitesi,EdebiyatFakültesi,ProtohistoryaveÖnasyaArkeolojisiABD,22030Edirne, Türkiye. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-5575

Wethanktheanonymousreviewersfortheirconstructivecomments.TheUlucakHöyükexcavationissupportedbytheTurkishMinistryofCultureandTourism.TheanalysesofmetallicfindsfromUlucakHöyükwerefundedbyTrakyaUniversity(TÜBAPProjectno:2017/220).TheworkofÖzlemÇevikforthepreparationofthisarticlewasalsosupportedbyTUBİTAKfellowship(1059B191802282)whichallowedastudyperiodatLaSapienzaUniversityin Rome. We wish to thank Jarrad W. Paul for his kind corrections to the language in this paper.

The Galena Objects from Neolithic Ulucak: The Earliest Metallic Finds in Western Turkey

ÖZLEM ÇEVİK – MURAT DİRİCAN – AYDIN ULUBEY – OSMAN VURUŞKAN*

Abstract

The earliest metal finds in central and east-ern Anatolia are small copper and malachite beads dating from the 9th millennium BC on-wards.However,thepresenceofmetallicfindsinNeolithiccontextsfromwesternAnatoliaare rarely known. An analysis of metallic finds fromUlucakHöyükshowsthatgalenawasused at the site from the early 7th millennium BCtotheearly6thmillenniumBC.Objectsmade of galena from initial phases at the site are considered personal ornaments, while an increasing number of galena lumps in rela-tion to ovens were found in later phases. Thus, galenafindsfromUlucakHöyüksuggestthatat first this raw material seemed to have been perceivedasanexotic“stone”,whileafullun-derstanding of its properties may have been developed later.

Keywords:galena,UlucakHöyük,Neolithic,personal ornaments

Öz

Enerkenmetalbuluntularıtemsiledenbakırvemalahityapımıküçükboncuklar,OrtaveDoğuAnadolu’daMÖ9.binyıldanitibarengörülmek-tedir.BununlabirlikteBatıAnadolu’daNeolitikdöneme tarihlenen metal buluntu seyrektir. UlucakHöyük’teelegeçenmetalbuluntularınanalizi,galeninerkenMÖ7.binyıldanMÖ6.binyılınbaşınakadaryerleşimdekullanıldığınıgöstermektedir. En erken evrede bulunan ga-lenyapımınesnelerikişiselsüseşyalarıtemsilederken,geçevrelerdeartansayıdagalentopa-ğınınfırınlarlailişkiliolarakelegeçtiğikayde-dilmiştir.BunedenleUlucakgalenbuluntuları,olasılıklabaşlangıçtabuhammaddeninegzotikbir“taş”olarakalgılandığını,kimyasalözellikle-rinedairtambiranlayışınisedahasonrageliş-tirildiğiniişaretetmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:galen,UlucakHöyük,Neolitik,kişiselsüseşyaları

DOI 10.47589/adalya.837448

Özlem Çevik – Murat Dirican – Aydın Ulubey – Osman Vuruşkan8

IntroductionArchaeological evidence suggests a series of developmental sequences can be traced between thefirstappearanceofmetalobjectsandtheonsetofextractivemetallurgies.Theearliestmetalfinds found in Anatolia date from the 9th millennium BC and are small copper and malachite beads.1Theuseofnativecopperthenbecamewidespreadduringthelate7th/early6thmillen-niumBC,withexamplesfoundfromIrantoEurope.2 During the Neolithic, most of the copper objectswereshapedbycold-hammering.Some,however,likethosefromÇayönüandAşıklıdatingtothe8thmillenniumBC,wereclearlymadefromannealednativecopper.3

Galena(aleadsulfideore,PbS)isonenaturalmetalfoundinNeolithiccontextsfromtheNear East. When compared to the abundance of copper and malachite artefacts, galena objects haveonlybeenrecordedattwoNeolithicsettlements(fig.1).ThreegalenaballswithtextileimpressionsareknownfromTell-HalulainnorthernSyria.4 These balls, found in burial con-texts,aredatedtothelatestPPNBphases-theendofthe8thmillenniumBC.InÇatalhöyükthirteengalenabeads,firstmistakenlyidentifiedaslead,werefoundinLevelVIB,datingtoaround the mid-7th millennium BC.5Moreover,apieceofgalenafoundnexttoalimestonefigurineinaspecialdepositfromtheupperlevelsofÇatalhöyük(LevelIII)indicateslong-termuse of this raw material at the site.6

UnlikethesituationobservedineasternandcentralAnatolia,theoccurrenceofmetallicfindsinNeolithiccontextsfromwesternAnatoliaisrare.Thus,therecentdiscoveryofmetallicobjectsfromUlucakandamalachitebeadfromUğurlu7ontheislandofGökçeada(Imbros)representtheonlyknownfindsfromwesternAnatoliainthe7thmillenniumBC.Untilnow,the earliest known metallurgical activities in western Anatolia have been traced to the late 4th andtheearly3rdmillenniumBC,withlinesofevidencefromLimantepe,Baklatepe,Troy,ÇukuriçiandIlıpınar.8

Inthisarticle,wepresentananalysisofthemetallicfindsfoundatUlucakHöyük,dat-ingfromtheearly7thmillenniumBCthroughtotheearly6thmillenniumBC.XRF,XRDand SEM-EDXanalyseswereappliedinordertodeterminethemineralogicalandchemicalproper-ties of the archaeological finds and to compare them with modern samples taken from a near-byleadmine.TheUlucakmetallicobjectsarealsoconsideredsymbolicmedia.Asaresult,thisarticle will also discuss the dynamics which may have stimulated the initial use of metallic ores.

Metallic Finds: Contextual and Chronological SettingUlucakHöyüklies25kmeastofİzmirinwest-centralTurkey(fig.2).ThemoundislocatedinthewesternpartoftheKemalpaşaplain,whichissurroundedbytheNifandSpilmountainsinitssouthernandnorthernendsrespectively.Ulucakisasmallmoundcoveringanareaof

1 Birchetal.2013;LehnerandYener2014;Yalçın2016;Erdoğu2017.2 Roberts et al. 2009, 1013-14.3 Maddinetal.1999;ÖzdoğanandÖzdoğan1999;Esin1995,1999.4 Molist et al. 2010, 37-41.5 Radivojevicetal.2017,105-6;Sperl1990.6 Meskelletal.2016.7 Erdoğu2017,36.8 ŞahoğluandTuncer2014,71;Kaptan2008;Erkanal2008;HorejsandMehofer2015;Begemannetal.1994.

The Galena Objects from Neolithic Ulucak: The Earliest Metallic Finds in Western Turkey 9

ca. 1 ha with 11 m of stratigraphic sequence.9 The Neolithic occupation at the site, which is designatedbyLevelsVIthroughIV,isdatedfrom6850to5670calBC.Theanalysisofthece-reals and the animal bones prove that the subsistence at the site was based on a fully-fledged agricultural system, starting from the basal layers onwards.10

MetallicfindshavebeenfoundinLevelVI(6850-6500calBC)andLevelIV(6000-5670calBC).Theirabsenceinbetween(LevelV)maybetheresultofexcavationbias.Therearefiveworked metallic finds (fig. 3), with the remaining objects (n=25) considered metallic lumps (fig. 4 and table 1). The total weight for the metallic lumps is about 1.5 kgs. The measurement oftheselumpsishighlyvaried,fromsmall(0.65x0.29cm)tolarge(7.31x3.78cm).

Threemetallicpendantsbelongtotheearliestoccupation,LevelVI(fig.3a,bande).These personal ornaments are of particular significance as they represent the earliest port-ablesymbolicmediaatUlucak.LevelVIisrepresentedbytwoadjacentbuildings(Buildings42 and 43) flanked by open spaces with fire installations.11 Building 42, and the adjacent fire installations, were rebuilt three times while the earliest phase was contemporary with Building 43.Scatteredanimalbonessurroundingthefireinstallationssuggestthattheywereusedforcooking. These buildings, with lime-plastered and red-painted floors and walls, are thought to have been of communal character. Both buildings seem to have been deliberately left clean and covered with a green and sterile layer. No pottery or other clay objects were attested in this earliest phase at the site. One of the pendants has a triangular shape (fig. 3a) and was found in an ashy deposit around the hearth in an open space located at the southern end of Building 43. Two of the pendants are stylized human (figs. 3b and 5) and lozenge shaped (fig. 3e)andwereuncoveredinathinfilllyingbetweenBuilding40inLevelVeandthewallde-brisofBuilding42inLevelVI.ThesependantsareconsideredwithinthecontextofBuilding42, as Building 40 was directly built on the wall debris of the former building. Archaeological evidence found in relation to Buildings 42 and 43 suggest that they were ritually abandoned. This includes the deliberate placement of objects as part of ritual abandonment of Building 42 and 43 including grinding stones and specific animal bones such as scapulae and mandibles. Additionally, stone beads, grinding stones, and animal bones found in a special deposit above Building54inUlucakVdprovidefurtherevidencethatpersonalornamentswerepartofbuild-ing closure deposits.

Twometallicobjectstogetherwithtwenty-fivelumpswerefoundinUlucakIV(figs.3c-dand4).LevelIVb(5840-5700calBC)hasbeeninvestigatedinarelativelylargearea,cover-ing ca. 1000 m2. This phase is characterized by adjacent mudbrick dwellings which were ar-rangedalongthenarrowstreets.Theearlierphaseofthishorizon,IVc(6005-5840calBC),isonly known from a specialized pottery production workshop.12 This workshop, consisting of sixpost-framedstructures,revealedalargenumberofclayloaves,unfinishedcoilvessels,redhematite lumps, and the remains of pigmented grinding stones used for powdering hematite.

One of the metallic objects (fig. 3d) is reminiscent of the abbreviated human clay figurines fromthesamehorizon(fig.6)inUlucakIV.ThismetallicfigurinewasfoundbeneathfallenwalldebrisimmediateoutsideBuilding13,whichcausedgreatconflagrationinLevelIVb,and possibly belongs to the same building. Another object looks like a chisel (fig. 3c) when

9 Çilingiroğluetal.2004,3-5.10 Çakırlar2012,26.11 Çevik2019,221-26;ÇevikandAbay2016,187-93.12 Çevik2016.


comparedwithstoneexamples(fig.7).However,itseemsthatitwasnotusedforthesamepurposes.Thecontextofachisel-likeobjectisnotclearasitwasfoundinafillbetweenLevelsIVaandIVbwhichwaspartlydisturbedbyLateRomanbuildingactivities.

Themetalliclumps(fig.4)wereonlyattestedinUlucakIV.Abouthalfoftheselumpswerefound in buildings with substantial ovens. Most of these in situfindscamefromBuildings61and66wherepotteryproductioninspecializedanddomesticcontextstookplace.Theovensin these buildings, however, appear to have been primarily used for pigment production seen by traces of red pigment on oven bases and a heavy concentration of red hematite lumps sur-roundingtheovens.Thesuddenincreaseinquantityofmetalliclumpsafter6000BC,andtheircontextualrelationshipwithovens,issignificantgiventheconnectionbetweenmetalliclumpsand pottery production, but their connection is yet unknown.

Metallic Ore Sources and Chemical Analysis of the Ulucak SamplesEvidence for mining and metallurgical activities in Anatolia dates back to prehistoric peri-ods.13However,metallicsourcesareparticularlyrichintheeasternandnortheasternregionsof Anatolia where such activities are more intensely observed both in the past and present. Nevertheless,thesourcesandexploitationofcopper,gold,silver,leadandzinchavealsobeenreported in western Anatolia.14

The shiny appearance of metallic ore lumps could have attracted the Neolithic community ofUlucak.TheNeolithicinhabitantsatthesitemusthavehadeasyaccesstotherichmetallicoresourcesontheslopesofNifMountain,whichliesimmediatelysouthofthesite.Infact,amodernleadminelocatedabout4kmsoutheastofUlucakHöyükisstillactivelyexploited(fig. 2).

Itisnecessarytodeterminethemineralogicalandchemicalpropertiesofbotharchaeologi-cal samples and modern samples by analytical methods. The aim of this analysis is to deter-minethepropertiesofthematerialandtoconductaprovenanceanalysis.Inordertodeter-minethemineralogicalandchemicalpropertiesofthemetallicfinds(UlucakOVG,OTC,RUO,LOP)(fig.5),XRD,XRFandSEM-EDXanalyseswereperformedonthemetallicfigurinefromPhaseIV(fig.3d)andontwomodernmetallicoresamples(Modern1andModern2)fromtheabove-mentionedleadmine.Sincewewerenotallowedtotakesamplesfromthemodernmine site, the modern raw material samples were provided by miners.

X-rayDiffraction(XRD)analyseswerecarriedoutattheMAM(MarmaraResearchCenter)inTÜBİTAK(TheScientificandTechnologicalResearchCouncilofTurkey),usingandiffrac-tometerXRD-6000Shimadzu(CuKα source, l=1.5405Å).TheX-raypatternswerecollectedatanintervalof0.01˚and6˚width.ThediffractionpeaksobservedaredefinedaccordingtoHanawaltSearchManual,InorganicPhases,PowderDiffractionFiles.

AsaresultofXRDanalysis(table2),exceptforoneofthemodernsamples(Modern2),the main mineral components are galena, anglesite and cerusite.15 The main identification of galena, as well as the presence of other lead mineral phases (anglesite, cerusite) (table 2), clearly confirms the mineral configurations of archaeological lump findings and one of the

13 Tylecote1976;deJesus1980.14 deJesus1978,1980.15 Lafuenteetal.2015.


modern samples.16 Anglesite and cerussite minerals are alteration products formed as a result of the galena mineral.17

The main mineral components of the other modern sample, Modern 2, were determined as pyrite,barite,smithsonite,quartzandcalcite.Thesearenotlead-containingminerals.However,these minerals are associated with the galena mineral. Galena is a common sulfide in hydro-thermal veins in association with sphalerite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, marcasite, calcite, quartz, bar-ite, fluorite, smithsonite and silver minerals.18Inhydrothermalveinsitisformedunderawiderangeoftemperaturesandincontactwithmetamorphicdepositsinpegmatites.Limestonesanddolostones are common host rocks.19NifMountainanditsenvironssouthofUlucak,wherethemodern samples were taken, was a suitable geological resource area. Jurassic-Cretaceous-aged NeriticlimestoneunitsandUpperSenonian-agedclasticsandcarbonateunitscanprovidesuit-able environments for this type of ore formation.20

X-rayfluorescencespectroscopy(XRF)analyseswasalsocarriedoutattheMAMinTÜBİTAK.XRFanalyseswereperformedonthesamethreesamplesinordertodeterminethemainelementconcentrations.X-rayfluorescencespectroscopyanalysiswasperformedusingaPhilipsPW-2404systemequippedwith4kWRhx-raysource,6analyzercrystals(LiF220,LiF200,Ge111,PE002,PX-1andPX-4),3detectors(argonflowproportionalandscintillationde-tectors,sealedxenondetector)andSuperQ4.0software.Thesamplesweredirectlyanalyzedwithout sample preparation.

The results of analysis are presented in table 3. One of the modern samples (Modern 1) shows close similarity to the archaeological lumps, especially with regards to its lead content. UlucakOTCprovidestheclosestsimilairity.Thesecondmodernsample(Modern2)hashighzincandironconcentrationsinparalleltoXRDresultsanddoesnotcontainlead.

Inadditiontoarchaeologicallumps,thePhaseIVmetallicfigurine(fig.3d)wassubjectedtonon-destructiveSEM-EDXanalysis.SEM-EDXanalysiswerecarriedoutattheTÜTAGEM(TechnologyResearchDevelopmentApplicationandResearchCenterinTrakyaUniversity)usingaZEISS-EVO®LS10scanningelectronmicroscopesystemequippedwiththermionicemission(W,LaB6),3nm@30kV,20nm@1kVresolution,energydispersivespectrom-eter(EDS)andbackscatteredelectrondetector(4QBSD).Duringtheanalysis,backscatteredelectron mode was also used, therefore, elemental density in the area where the analysis was appliedwasdeterminedandmappedindifferentcolors(fig.8andtable4).Areaswithhighlead(Pb)densityareshowninpink.TheseresultssupportthepreviousresultsofXRFanalysisperformed on metallic ore lumps.

Native lead is rarely encountered. The principal ore of lead is galena (lead sulphide), which, when it occurs in hydro-thermal veins, is frequently associated with silver ore minerals. Cerussite (lead carbonate) is an important, widely distributed secondary ore mineral of lead formed by the action of carbonated waters on galena.21 Galena has a distinct silver color and a bright metallic luster, while it is relatively soft, heavy mineral.22 The manufacturing techniques

16 Moore and Reynolds 1997.17 KeimandMarkl2015.18 KleinandPhilpotts2013.19 Anthony et al. 1990.20 MTA 1972.21 Moorey 1994.22 Austin et al. 2000, 123.


ofmetalobjectsfromUlucakareunknown.However,ithasbeensuggestedthatgalenacaneasily be shaped with stone-working techniques.23

ConclusionTheresultsofXRDandXRFanalysesonthemetalliclumps,togetherwiththeresultoftheSEM-EDXanalysisononeofthearchaeologicalobjects,showsthatgalenawasexploitedthroughouttheNeolithicperiodatUlucakHöyük.Theclosesimilaritybetweenthegalenalumps and the modern samples from the nearest lead mine indicates the possible provenance ofthearchaeologicalfinds.Leadisotopeanalysisisonereliablemethodologythatcanbeusedto identify the origin of metal artefacts.24Thus,inthenextstageoftheourstudy,leadiso-tope analysis will be conducted to accurately determine the provenance of the archaeological samples.

IncontrasttotheexploitationofnativecopperandmalachiteduringtheNeolithicperiod,artefactsmadeofgalenahavesofaronlybeenattestedatTellHalula,ÇatalHöyük,andnowUlucak.Thereseemslittleevidence,ifany,tosuggestthattheknowledgeofexploitationofthisrawmaterialatUlucakwastransferredfromtheEast,aslocalsourcesareclosetothesite.Furthermore,neitherthesubsistenceeconomynorthelithictechnologyatUlucaksuggestsanysimilarities with the sites in central Anatolia.25Thus,theUlucakNeolithiccommunitymaywellhave been innately impressed by the shiny appearance of galena.

ItisalsoworthnotingthatobjectsmadeofgalenafromUlucakrepresentsymbolicmedia,such as personal ornaments and a figurine. The chisel-like object may also have been con-sideredsymbolicallysignificant,asgalenaisasoftmaterialfortoolmanufacture.Ithasbeengenerally argued that practical technologies were stimulated by aesthetic curiosity and specific socio-cultural desires rather than economic or technical necessities.26AtÇatalHöyük,forin-stance,apieceofgalenafoundnexttothelimestonefigurineinaspecialdepositisthoughttohave been associated with the manufacturing process of the figurine because of the abraded edges of the piece.27TheabbreviatedgalenafigurinefromUlucakandtheuseofgalenaasatoolinmakingfigurinesatÇatalHöyükmayshowusaparticularsignificancethatcross-cultur-ally attributed to this raw material.

Haydenalsoplacedprestigetechnologiesasthefirststageoftechnicalachievementswhichlater evolved into more practical applications.28 Three galena pendants found in the earli-estlevelatUlucakcanbeconsideredprestigeitems.Thepercentageofthegalenapendantsis indeed rare, less than one percent, when they are compared with the total number of the personal ornaments made of stone, bone and shell from the site. Visibility and distinctiveness areconsideredimportantaspectsofprestigiousitems.Inawidersenseithasbeenstressedthat prestige acts simultaneously as a mechanism of social distinction.29 Personal ornaments are considered to be one of the body’s paraphernelia which played an active role in the

23 Pernicka 2014, 449.24 de Jesus and Dardeniz 2015.25 Guilbeau et al. 2019, 15; Arbuckle et al. 2014. 26 Smith1977,146;Robertsetal.2009,1012;Clark2015.27 Meskelletal.2016,141andfig.7.28 Hayden1998,33-34.29 BagleyandSchumann2013,125-26.


consititution of past identities.30 Accordingly, the recovery of galena ornaments from commu-nalbuildingsatUlucakmaybefurtherevidencetoindicatecertainindividualswithaffiliationto these buildings may have gained their social status by wearing these potentially prestigious ornaments.

TheincreaseofgalenalumpsinUlucakIV,andtheirclosecontextualrelationtoovens,leadustobelievethatgalenamayhavebeenfiredafter6000BC.Intwocases(Buildings61and66)whereahighnumberofgalenalumpswerefound,thefunctionofovenswasclearlyrelated to pottery-making, and particularly for red pigment production. Thus, it is yet unknown whether these ovens were used for pigment production and galena firing, or whether galena hadsomeroleinpigmentproductionitself.Exploitationofgalenaforpigmentmaterialisknown from later periods.31However,thepigmentcolorsoriginatingfromgalenaareblack,gray and white. Therefore, the use of galena in pigment production can hardly be assumed as thesurfacecolor(slip)ofUlucakNeolithicpotteryismainlyred.Nonetheless,galenawasmostlikelyperceivedasanexotic“stone”initallytothoseatUlucak,asafullunderstandingofitsnatural properties developed over time.

30 Joyce 2005, 142-43.31 Austin et al. 2000, 123.


Bibliography

Anthony,J.W.,R.A.Bideaux,K.W.Bladh,andM.C.Nichols.1990.Handbook of Mineralogy. Vol. 1, Elements, Sulfides, Sulfosalts. Tuscon, AZ: Mineral Data Publishing.

Arbuckle,B.S.,S.W.Kansa,E.Kansa,D.Ortonetal.2014.“DataSharingRevealsComplexityintheWestwardSpreadofDomesticAnimalsacrossNeolithicTurkey.”PLOS ONE9.6.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099845

Austin,R.J.,R.M.Farquhar,andK.J.Walker.2000.“IsotopeAnalysisofGalenafromPrehistoricSitesinSouthFlorida.”Anthropological Sciences63.2:123-31.

Bagley,J.M.,andR.Schumann.2013.“MaterializedPrestige.RemarksontheArchaeologicalResearchofSocialDistinctionBasedonCaseStudiesoftheLakeHallstattGoldenNecklacesandEarlyLaTéneMaskenfibeln.”InInterpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbeiträge der 5. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie,editedbyR.KarlandJ.Leskovar,123-36.StudienzurKulturgeschichtevonOberösterreich37.Linz:OberösterreichischesLandesmuseum.

Begemann,F.,E.Pernicka,andS.Schmitt-Strecker.1994.“MetalFindsfromIlıpınarandtheAdventofArsenicalCopper.”Anatolica 20:203-19.

Birch,T.,T.Rehren,andE.Pernicka.2013.“TheMetallicFindsfromÇatalhöyük:AReviewandPreliminaryNewWork.”InSubstantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons, editedbyI.Hodder,307-16.BritishInstituteatAnkaraMonographSeries48.London:BritishInstituteatAnkara.

Clark,N.2015.“FieryArts:PyrotechnologyandthePoliticalAestheticsof theAnthropocene.”GeoHumanities 1.2:266-84.

Çakırlar,C.2012.“TheEvolutionofAnimalHusbandryinNeolithicCentral-WestAnatolia:TheZooarchaeologicalRecordfromUlucakHöyük(c.7040-5660cal.BC,Izmir,Turkey).”AnatSt 62:1-33.

Çevik,Ö.,andE.Abay.2016.“NeolithisationinAegeanTurkey:TowardsaMoreRealisticReading.”InAnatolian Metal 7: Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren/Anatolia and Neighbours 10,000 Years Ago,editedbyÜ.Yalçın,187-97.DerAnschnittSuppl.31.Veröffentlichungenausdem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 214. Bochum: Deutschen Bergbau-Museum.

Çevik,Ö.2016.“NeolithicPotteryProductionWorkshopatUlucakHöyük,WesternTurkey:EvidenceforaFullProductionSequence.”Antiquity 90.350. https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/cevik350.

Çevik,Ö.2019.“ChangingIdeologiesinCommunity-MakingthroughtheNeolithicPeriodatUlucak.”InConcluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BCE, edited byA.Marciniak,219-40.Atlanta:LockwoodPress.

Çilingiroğlu,A.,Z.Derin,E.Abay,H.Sağlamtimur,andİ.Kayan.2004.Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted between 1995-2002.Leuven:PeetersPublisher.

deJesus,P.S.,andG.Dardeniz.2015.“ArchaeologicalandGeologicalConceptsontheTopicofAncientMining.”MTA Bulletin Mineral Research and Exploration151:231-46.

deJesus,P.S.1978.“MetalResourcesinAncientAnatolia.”AnatSt28:97-102.

deJesus,P.S.1980.The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia. BAR-IS 74. Oxford:B.A.R.

Erdoğu,B.2017.“WhithertheAegeanNeolithic?”InGoing West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni, and P.Nedelcheva,29-41.NewYork:Routledge.

Erkanal,H.2008.“DieneuenForschungeninBaklaTepebeiİzmir.”InThe Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, Proceedings of the International Symposium in Urla, October


13th-19th, 1997,editedbyH.Erkanal,H.Hauptmann,V.Şahoğlu,andR.Tuncel,165-77.Ankara:AnkaraÜniversitesiYayınları.

Esin,U.1995.“EarlyCopperMetallurgyatthePre-PotterySiteofAşıklı.”InHalet Çambel için Prehistorya Yazıları/Readings in Prehistory: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel,61-77.Istanbul:GraphisYayınları.

Esin,U.1999.“CopperObjectsfromthePre-PotteryNeolithicSiteofAşıklı(KızılkayaVillage,ProvinenceofAksarayTurkey.”InThe Beginnings of Metallurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy”, Bochum 1995, editedbyA.Hauptmann,E.Pernicka,T.Rehren,andÜ.Yalçın,23-30.DerAnschnittSuppl.9.VeröffentlichungenausdemDeutschenBergbau-MuseumBochum84.Bochum:DeutschesBergbau-Museum.

Guilbeau,D.,N.Kayacan,Ç.AltınbilekAlgül,B.Erdoğu,andÖ.Çevik.2019.“AComparativeStudyoftheInitialNeolithicChipped-StoneAssemblgesofUlucakandUğurlu.”AnatSt69:1-20.

Hayden,B.1998.“PracticalandPrestigeTechnologies:TheEvolutionofMaterialSystems.”Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5.1:1-55.

Horejs,B.,andM.Mehofer.2015.“EarlyBronzeAgeMetalWorkshopsatÇukuriçiHöyük.ProductionofArsenicalCopperattheBeginningofthe3rdMillenniumBC.”InArchaeometallurgy in Europe III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference June 29-July 1, 2011, edited by A.HauptmannandD.Modarressi-Tehrani,165-76.DerAnschnittSuppl.26.Veröffentlichungenaus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 202. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.

Joyce,R.A.2005.“ArchaeologyoftheBody.”The Annual Review of Anthropology34:139-58.

Kaptan,E.2008.“MetallurgicalResiduesfromLateChalcolithicandEarlyBronzeAgeLimanTepe.”InThe Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age, Proceedings of the International Symposium in Urla, October 13th-19th, 1997,editedbyH.Erkanal,H.Hauptmann,V.Şahoğlu,andR.Tuncel,243-50.Ankara:AnkaraÜniversitesiYayınları.

Keim,M.,andG.Markl.2015.“WeatheringofGalena:MineralogicalProcesses,HydrogeochemicalFluidPathModeling,andEstimationoftheGrowthRateofPyromorphite.”American Mineralogist 100.7:1584-594.

Klein,C.,andA.R.Philpotts.2013.Earth Materials: Introduction to Mineralogy and Petrology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lehner,J.W.,andK.A.Yener.2014.“OrganizationandSpecializationofEarlyMiningandMetalTechnologiesinAnatolia.”InArchaeometallurgy in Global Perspectives: Methods and Syntheses, editedbyB.W.RobertsandC.Thornton,529-57.NewYork:Springer.

Lafuente,B.,R.T.Downs,H.Yang,andN.Stone.2016.“ThePowerofDatabases:TheRRUFFProject.”InHighlights in Mineralogical Crystallography, edited by T. Armbruster and R.M Danisi, 1-29. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Maddin,R.,J.D.Muhly,andT.Stech.1999.“EarlyMetalWorkingatÇayönü.”InThe Beginnings of Metallurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy”, Bochum 1995, editedbyA.Hauptmann,E.Pernicka,T.Rehren,andÜ.Yalçın,37-44.DerAnschnittSuppl.9.VeröffentlichungenausdemDeutschenBergbau-MuseumBochum84.Bochum:DeutschesBergbau-Museum.

Meskell,L.,C.Nakamura,L.Der,C.Tsornaki,andM.Arntz.2016.“Figurines.”Çatalhöyük Archive Report, editedbyS.D.Haddow,137-64.http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2016

Molist,M.,I.M.Ruiz,X.Clop,S.Rovira,E.Guerrero,andJ.Anfruns.2009.“NewMetallurgicFindingsfromthePre-PotteryNeolithic:Tell-Halula(EuphratesValley,Syria).”Paléorient 35.2:33-48.

Moore, D.M., and R.C. Reynolds. 1997. X-ray Diffraction and Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals.2nded.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Moorey,P.R.S.1994.Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford:ClarendonPress.


MTA 1972. Lead, Copper and Zinc Deposits of Turkey.MadenTetkikveAramaGenelMüdürlüğü,Publication No. 133. Ankara.

Özdoğan,M.,andA.Özdoğan.1999.“ArchaeologicalEvidenceontheEarlyMetallurgyatÇayönüTepesi.”InThe Beginnings of Metallurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy”, Bochum 1995, editedbyA.Hauptmann,E.Pernicka,T.Rehren,andÜ.Yalçın,13-22.DerAnschnittSuppl.9.VeröffentlichungenausdemDeutschenBergbau-MuseumBochum84.Bochum:DeutschesBergbau-Museum.

Pernicka,E.2014.“TheDevelopmentofMetallurgyinWesternAnatolia,TheAegeanandtheSouthernEuropebeforeTroy.”InWestern Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC?: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 November 2012,editedbyB.HorejsandM.Mehofer,447-61.OrientalandEuropeanArchaeology1.Vienna:AustrianAcademyofSciencesPress.

Radivojevic,M.,T.Rehren,S.Farid,E.Pernicka,andD.Çamurcuoğlu.2017.“RepealingtheÇatalhöyükExtractiveMetallurgy:TheGreen,theFireandtheSlag.”JAS86:101-22.

Roberts,B.W.,C.P.Thornton,andV.C.Pigott.2009.“DevelopmentofMetallurgyinEurasia.”Antiquity 83.322:1012-22.

Smith,C.S.1977.“OnArt,Invention,andTechnology.”Leonardo 10.2:144-47.

Sperl,G.1990.“ZurUrgeschichtedesBleises.”Zeitschrift für Metallkunde81.11:799-801.

Şahoğlu,V.,andR.Tuncer.2014.“NewInsightsintotheLateChalcolithicofCoastalWesternAnatolia:AViewfromBaklaTepe,İzmir.”InWestern Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC?: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 November 2012,editedbyB.HorejsandM.Mehofer,65-82.OrientalandEuropeanArchaeology1.Vienna:AustrianAcademyofSciencesPress.

Tylecote,R.F.1976.A History of Metallurgy.London:MetalsSociety.

Yalçın,Ü.2016.“AnadoluMadencilikTarihineTopluBirBakış.”MT Bilimsel Yer Altı Kaynakları Dergisi 9:3-13.

MakaleGeliş/Received : 28.12.2019

MakaleKabul/Accepted : 13.04.2020


FIG. 1 The map showing the sites mentioned in the text.

FIG. 2 The map showing the locations of Ulucak Höyük and lead mine.


FIG. 3 Photos and drawings of galena objects.

a

b

c

d

e0 5 cm


FIG. 4 Galena lumps from Ulucak IV.

FIG. 5 Galena pendant (level VI) and a chisel like object (level IV).

FIG. 6 Galena figurine and abbreviated clay figurines from Ulucak IV.

a b

0 5 cm


FIG. 7 Chisel like galena object and stone chisels.

FIG. 8 Results of SEM-EDX analysis, backscattered electron mode.

a

0 3 cm

b


TABLE 1 Context and dating of galena finds from Ulucak Höyük.


TABLE 2 Results of XRD analysis.


TABLE 3 Results of XRF analysis.

TABLE 4 Results of SEM-EDX analysis.

ADALYA 23 2020 ADALYA...Galena is a common sulfide in hydro- thermal veins in association with...

Documents

Transcript of ADALYA 23 2020 ADALYA...Galena is a common sulfide in hydro- thermal veins in association with...