Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 14, No 2, pp. 281-313 Copyright © 2014 MAA Printed in Greece. All rights reserved. RESTRUCTURING THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF A PERAEAN DEME THROUGH PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND GIS: THE CASE OF PHOINIX (BOZBURUN PENINSULA, TURKEY) E.Deniz OĞUZ-KIRCA Middle East Technical University, Dept. of Settlement Archaeology, Turkey Received: 25/04/2014 Accepted: 19/07/2014 Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT The archaeology world has been in a trend of exploring the rural landscapes often in- separable from the periphery of urban localities. The deme of Phoinix, lying in the coun- tryside of the Bozburun Peninsula (in SW Turkey) is a quasi-coastal rural habitat where the way of implantation of the settlement components quite conceals the typical aspects of a chora. This paper aims to reconstruct the settlement pattern and explain the change process of the long unattended deme of Phoinix as well as the basic motives behind its spatial organization during the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The discussions hereunder are based on the results of the field campaigns carried out in 2009-2012i and the data insofar as analyzed through the application of photogrammet- ric study and GIS. The results have revealed that the built areas, which are made up of only 2% of terrain, occurred up to 200 m where the slope values reached 30ο over terra- rosa soil cover, regardless of aspect. The overall silhouette, as highly affected by the frag- mented environments, has put forward that the Classical deme transformed itself into a dendritic pattern extending as far as 1.3 km as it grew into the Hellenistic era. KEYWORDS: Phoinix, Remote Sensing, Spatial Organization, Hellenistic, Change 282 E.D. OĞUZ-KIRCA 1. INTRODUCTION able from particular fragments about the Originally incorporated into the Carian place of residence, e.g. a philosopher of territories, the Classical Bozburun Peninsu- Rhodes, Airedales, is echoed to have resid- la (Fig.1) is ofttimes cited as the Carian ed in the deme of Phoinix (Von Gäaertring- Chersonesos. Neighboring the Cnidian en 1912)) promoted by the scholars (Grose Peninsula, it soon lies at the opposite of 1929; Head 1963; Head 1968; Tuna and Rhodes. Due to the physical setting being Empereur 1989; Bresson 1991; Doğer and far from more attractive locations in the Şenol 1996; Aydaş 2010). Aegean, few sites within the borders of the Phoinix, being the least disturbed deme in Peninsula (hereinafter referred to as the the Peraea, is a mini laboratory which re- “Peraea”) have been thoroughly identified veals about the extent and limits of demos to date. Hence, it is one of the potential re- (Fraser and Bean 1954; Jones 1987; Aydaş gions which offer quite opportunities to 2010) based settlements within the socio- run an eye over the village type organiza- spatial context. It was possibly attached to tions- the so-called demes and the network Kamiros (Meyer 1925; Fraser and Bean they formed since the Classical era. 1954; Robert 1983) along with the introduc- tion of a new deme system (based on the ktoina practice of the three old poleis (Ialy- sos, Lindos, Kamiros) of Rhodes which might have rolled around the synoecism process of the Island in 408 B.C) on the mainland or the revival of old Carian terri- torial forms of administration. There is possibility that the demes and the Island could have had long recognized organic, perhaps merely amicable relations (but greatly in the economic sense) before the Peraea’s full integration into the “colonial” sphere of Rhodes, dating far back to the Archaic era (Aydaş 2010). In the course of Rhodian control, any type relation could have had expression in the settlement pat- tern and new ways of living in Phoinix and the other demes of the Peraea. However, a core of truth is to be sought in the physical Figure 1 The location of Bozburun Peninsula and constraints posed by the environment. Phoinix 2. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITA- When the Peraea had to change its status TIONS into being a dominion of Rhodes, it became The results of this paper are biased to- the land of Hellenized native communities ward the spatial processes of the long time (Hansen and Nielsen 2004) and a share- ignored site of Phoinix. Along with the holder as well as a periphery of the Island, display of survey data attained during the in the early Hellenistic period. This is un- “extensive” surveys, the interpretations derstandable through various patterns (e.g. greatly benefit from the techniques used in the coinage, assemblages onto which the aerial archaeology. The research utilized Rhodian eponyms were inscribed, numer- different scale maps and aerial photo- ous epitaphs and inscriptions relating to graphs produced by the Turkish General economic, political and cultural relations Command of Mapping in 1971-2009; and between Rhodes and the Peraea (also infer- the digital soil map obtained from the © University of the Aegean, 2014, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 14, 2 (2014) 281-313 SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF PHOINIX 283 Turkish Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). In nitude of agricultural production and the the first phase of the indoor study, the aeri- way of spatial organization at the “urban” al images were oriented to real ground co- and rural levels did not continue into the ordinates. Then, a digital elevation model Late Roman periods. (DEM, with 5 meters grid size) was gener- ated with the help of Inpho Match-T soft- 3. THE BACKGROUND ON PHOINIX ware. Using this digital elevation data, In the thick volume on the inventory of high resolution (50 cm) orthophotos of the the Archaic and Classical poleis, Hansen deme were created with Inpho OrthoBox. The field data (relevant to the ancient struc- and Nielsen (2004) provide a full version of tures) as well as the supplementary data the updated pre-Hellenistic settlements, obtained through photo-geology and those none of which, except Amos and the whole Peninsula forming a polis in the 5th century collected from the orthophotos in the form of vector data, formed the next background B.C, are individually characterized as a po- for a vector dataset to be manipulated in lis in the Peraea. Falling to a non-polis sta- Map Info Professional 10.5 version and tus (Flensted-Jensen 2004), Phoinix covers a considerable area within the borders of ESRI ArcGIS 10.0. The pitfall of the study arises from the modern Taşlıca Village, which is quite a scope of the formal permission, impeded rocky terrain in the Peraea. The ancient for conducting a systematic survey. At the deme center was situated in the former Fenaket Village, which is ca. 2.5 km SW of same time, the lack of diagnostic pottery Taşlıca (Fig.2). Originally, this place has caused growing difficulties in dating. On one hand, great variations in relief, thus been called under various names, one of physical limitations caused time straits and which was Rumevlek (Burgett et al. 1984). imposed difficulties to access some more The Lower Fenaket, known locally as Sindili and remarkable with numerous promising spots for settlement. The prob- lem was tried to be tackled with the help of megaron dwellings (Özberk 2004), was aerial views. Down-slope displacement of completely occupied by the Turkish groups settlements and off-site pottery densities until the 1950s when the Greeks aban- doned the area within the process of com- could not be studied, either. Despite strong pulsory population exchange between natural indicators like paleosol and pedo- logical features, microanalyses were not modern Turkey and Greece. opted for. A problem with the digital soil Although nothing has remained today, maps is that they display the recent soil we are informed of the abundance of epi- graphic evidence, often datable to the 5th- characteristics. Also, some basic compo- rd nents of these maps were found to be in- 3 centuries B.C. The deme was previously complete about land use. This research identified with names marking Фοινίκη rd puts forward some basic assumptions at from a 3 century B.C inscription detected in the neighboring site of Loryma (Fraser the same time. The vast majority of the ag- and Bean 1954) and an inscription (5th- 4th ricultural terraces where degradation is observed must have survived from the century B.C) found in the house of a native Hellenistic period. Those which have been in the Upper Fenaket (Bresson 1991). Dür- in-use recently (over the last 40-50 years) rbach and Radet (1886) pinpoint Phoinix as one of the main settlements in the Peraea; may be intrinsically misleading; they can obscure the patterns of land use in the past. Phenikeh (not situated on the coastline), … “a egale distance des deux rivages de la peninsule, Arising from the lack of historical research and chronological weaknesses about the au fond d’un sorte de cirque tres encaisse. Fra- ser and Bean (1954) associate Phoinix with terraces but as highlighted by the farm- B/Karayüksek Dağ (536 m) but were ad- steads, a selective approach in favor of the mittedly pinpointing the peak behind the Hellenistic debris has been greatly taken. It Acropolis. has also been postulated that the real mag- © University of the Aegean, 2014, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 14, 2 (2014) 281-313 284 E.D. OĞUZ-KIRCA Figure 2 Megaron dwellings in the deme center at Fenaket Although no demotic has been witnessed cals were called under the same ethnicon. up to now, the inscriptions have disclosed No matter, the acknowledgement of the that Phoinix had a fortified Acropolis on top deme needs to be based on the territorial of a hill between the Lower and Upper borders named as Phoinix. In accordance Fenaket which seemingly corresponds to with what has been conveyed by the schol- modern (double peak) Hisartepe.