Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Project, the Third Season
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Anatolica XLII, 2016 LOWER GÖKSU ARCHAEOLOGICAL SALVAGE SURVEY PROJECT, THE THIRD SEASON Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu, Naoíse Mac Sweeney, Anna Collar, Carlo Colantoni and Stuart Eve* Abstract This article presents the results of the 2015 season of the Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Project, which has run since 2013 in the Mersin Province of southern Turkey. This year, the team continued documenting archaeological sites and monuments in the valley before the construction of the Kayraktepe Dam, which will submerge the heritage and the landscape. The 2015 season was almost totally devoted to intensive surveys conducted in two alluvial plains with relatively rich archaeological deposits: one in the area where the Kurtsuyu River joins the Göksu River; and the other where the Ermenek River meets the Göksu River. These intensive surveys were accompanied by geophysical studies and aerial photography. This article presents a summary of the field season, a discussion of the different fieldwork methods that were applied and tested, the results of the intensive surveys, and a fresh consideration of the local settlement patterns and their temporal development in light of the findings. The 2015 season of this Bitlis Eren University project, which is conducted in collaboration with the University of Leicester, was funded by the British Academy through a Newton Advanced Fellowship. The survey project will continue in 2016 with the generous support of the British Academy and we hope to start excavating the site of Çingentepe in 2017 in collaboration with the Silifke Museum. Introduction The Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Project (LGASSP) was started in 2013 with the aim of documenting the endangered archaeological heritage of the Lower Göksu valley in the Mersin Province of Turkey. This heritage will be lost forever with the construction of the Kayraktepe Hydroelectric Dam, as this will form a huge artificial lake that will flood the whole valley (Şerifoğlu et al. 2014). For this reason, our team surveyed the area between the towns of Silifke (ancient Seleucia ad Calycadnum) and Mut (ancient Claudiopolis) in 2013 and 2014 (Şerifoğlu et al. 2014; 2015). The extensive surveys conducted during these two seasons has al- lowed us to discover several new sites and we have been able to push back the date of earliest oc- cupation in the valley into the Chalcolithic period. These initial surveys have also allowed us to better understand the evolving settlement patterns in the valley from prehistoric times until the medieval period. Data from previously known sites were also collected during the 2013 and 2014 seasons as a part of a more intensive methodological approach to the study of ancient settlements and their relationships with their environment, and our 2015 season has been mainly aimed at developing this approach through more detailed studies and more intensive investigations. * Bitlis Eren University, the University of Leicester, Aarhus University, the University of Leicester, and (UK-based archaeological practice) L-P : Archaeology, respectively. 12 Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu et al. The 2015 season of LGASSP was conducted between 29th June and 15th July with a much bigger team than in previous years. The fieldwork team consisted of Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu (director), Naoíse Mac Sweeney (co-director), Carlo Colantoni (field director), Nazlı Evrim Şerifoğlu (fieldwork assistant, illustrator and photographer), Anna Collar (Roman and Byzantine specialist), Stuart Eve (database and GIS manager) and Özlem Evci (government representative). Graduate students Bengi Başak Selvi, Panagiotis Georgopoulos, Nevra Arslan, Songül Yetişir and Şıvan Ayus took part in all fieldwork activities and in the documentation process. The primary aim of this season was not the same as in previous years and we did not opt to work extensively, covering large tracts of the landscape and recording new sites and monuments. Indeed, only four new archaeological sites were discovered this year: Çakıltepe I, Çakıltepe II, Kışla Bridge and the Çingentepe Spring. The most recent map of LGASSP sites is presented in Fig. 1. Instead of an extensive approach, this season we decided to focus on two alluvial plains that are relatively rich in archaeological deposits: the first in the area where the Kurtsuyu River joins the Göksu, including the sites of Kilise Tepe and Çingentepe; and the second where the Ermenek meets the Göksu, including the sites of Attepe and Görmüttepe. We hope that conducting more intensive survey in these two areas will allow us to gain a better understanding of settlement patterns at a meso scale, the relationships between first and second order sites, and the relationships between sites and their hinterlands. As a result of this new focus for our work, this year we employed a range of different survey methodologies to those used in previous seasons. Fig. 1. Map of the Lower Göksu Valley, showing LGASSP sites. Anatolica XLII, 2016 13 Intensive Survey Methodology Kilise Tepe gridded area: The season started with intensive surveys conducted around the site of Kilise Tepe, which is the only mound type settlement in the Göksu Valley that has been scientifically excavated (Postgate and Thomas 2007; Jacksonet al. 2013; Bouthillier et al. 2014). The immediate vicinity of the mound was divided into 20 m x 20 m grids and a large area around the site was walked systematically, although we mainly focused on the areas to the north of the mound. Sherds and lithic finds in each grid were counted, and lithics and diag- nostic sherds were photographed and drawn. The physical characteristics of the collection grids were recorded (soil colour, vegetation, slope, ground visibility, etc.) and a general photograph of each grid was taken. This intensive survey around the foot of Kilise Tepe revealed a number of hot spots (Fig. 2). The largest amount of pottery was recorded in the south-west of the tepe, with a mas- sive 454 sherds recorded within one single square. The evidence seems to suggest that there is activity around the north, west and east sides of the tepe, with less activity occurring on the southern edge. However, pottery was recorded in most of the squares and clusters occur on the southwest and northern side of the hill. It should be noted that an area to the north of Kilise Tepe (northeast of the spring below the site) was used as the pottery washing and dumping ground during the excavations in the 1990s. Although our team members did not count or record the sherds that formed large sherd heaps in certain parts of this area, this past usage of the space may have af- fected the pottery densities and therefore the counts in this area. Tiles were consid- ered separately from other ceramics, and the gridded survey turned up a gener- ally low tile count around the foot of Kilise Tepe, with most squares revealing between 0-5 pieces (Fig. 3). How ever, a large cluster of tile was discovered to the northwest – the distribu- tion of which may contin- ue beyond the borders of the gridded area. Consider- ing the visibility of tiles in Fig. 2. Total sherd count per square walked the field, the relatively low in the area around Kilise Tepe. 14 Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu et al. levels recovered may be sig- nificant. At this stage it is difficult to tie the tile clus- ter to any form of activity, beyond a possible area of tile dump. However, once they are properly examined they may reveal evidence of building activity in the hin- terland of Kilise Tepe. Transect-walked area: Once the investiga- tions at the area surround- ing Kilise Tepe were com- pleted, we walked the area between this site and that of Çingentepe, the closest mound to Kilise Tepe, lo- cated on the southern side of the Göksu River. Instead of gridding, a different ap- proach was adopted for the investigation of this large Fig. 3. Total tile count per square walked in the area around Kilise Tepe. area, which includes Kışla Village and the banks of the Göksu River. Our team walked various targeted parts of this large area. In particular, tran- sects were undertaken from the main Mersin-Karaman road (the D715) southwards to the site of Kilise Tepe, crossing the Göksu and on to the site of Çingentepe. While ideally we would have liked to have walked a larger and more comprehensive area of the landscape between Kilise Tepe and Çingentepe, we were constrained by topography, accessibility and time. Some of these constraints included: the floodplain and seasonal floodplain (evident through the use of these areas as agricultural land); modern tracks and roads; human occupation (the village and cemetery); and human destruction (with extensive gravel extraction pits lying within the sample area). In addition to these practical constraints, our choice of areas to walk was also guided by the likelihood of ancient occupation in these areas. The landscape between Kilise Tepe and Çingentepe is slightly undulating, and slopes southwest towards the Göksu. It has been heavily modified by man with a village, tracks, tarmac roads and gravel quarrying. The space available in antiquity for settlement is far more circumscribed than maps or satellite im- agery suggests. The floodplain itself occupies a considerable area and it is a terrain of ridges and steep slopes, especially along the course of the river. When taken in conjunction with access to water – the tributaries and springs – these limiting factors combine to restrict the number of locations suitable for ancient settlements. Anatolica XLII, 2016 15 Each different area that was walked was defined as a discrete study zone, and each zone was then divided into smaller walking units based on the location and the general character of that specific area (i.e. cemetery, village centre, agricultural field). Within each of these study areas, all the archaeological finds that we could see were counted, and diagnostic sherds and lithics were drawn and photographed.