International Symposium on East Anatolia— South Caucasus Cultures International Symposium on East Anatolia— South Caucasus Cultures Proceedings I Edited by Mehmet Işıklı and Birol Can International Symposium on East Anatolia—South Caucasus Cultures: Proceedings I Edited by Mehmet Işıklı and Birol Can Redacted by Janette Tripp Bailey (English Language) Redacted by Kazım Köktekin (Turkish Language) Cover designed by Ufuk Çetinkaya This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Mehmet Işıklı, Birol Can and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7234-2 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7234-8 As a two volume set: ISBN (10): 1-4438-7810-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7810-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... xi Prof. Dr. Hikmet KOÇAK Rector of Atatürk University & President of ESRUC Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................. xiii Prof. Dr. Dilaver DÜZGÜN Dean of Faculty of Letters Symposium Opening Address ............................................................................................................................... xv Prof. Dr. Yılmaz ÖZBEK Former Dean of Faculty of Letters Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... xvii Assoc. Prof. Mehmet IŞIKLI and Assoc. Prof. Birol CAN Editors Opening Address/Açılış Bildirisi .......................................................................................................................... xxi Prof. Dr. Fahri IŞIK Batıyı Yaratan Uygarlık: Anadolu-İon Academic Committee ......................................................................................................................................... xxix Chalcolithic Age Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Armenia: New Data .................................................................................................. 2 Ermenistan’da Neolitik ve Kalkolitik: Yeni Veriler Christine Chataigner, Makoto Arimura, Ruben Badalyan, Giulio Palumbi Some Aspects on the Pottery Finds from Udabno in Kakheti (Eastern Georgia) .................................................. 16 Kaçeti-Udabno'dan (Doğu Gürcistan) Ele Geçen Seramikler Üzerine Bazı Görüşler Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker Late Chalcolithic Culture of Nakhchivan and Problems of Caucasian Archaeology ............................................ 28 Nahçıvan Son Kalkolitik Kültürü ve Kafkasya Arkeolojisinin Sorunları Veli Bahşaliyev The Southern Urmia Basin during the Chalcolithic Period ................................................................................... 40 Kalkolitik Dönem’de Güney Urmiye Havzası Ali Binandeh, Aram Kosyan Archaeological Studies at Settlement Gel Yeri ..................................................................................................... 47 Gel Yeri Yerleşimi'ndeki Arkeolojik Çalışmalar Muzaffar Huseynov The Leilatepe Archaeological Culture: Its Near-Eastern Roots and its Place in the Caucasus Chalcolithic ......... 58 Kafkasya Kalkolitiğinde Leylatepe Kültürü Najaf Museibli Bronze Age The Role of Pastoral Communities of the Upper Euphrates Region in the Expansion of the Kura-Araxes Culture .......78 M.Ö. Üçüncü Binyılın Başlarında Malatya Ovası'nda Kura-Aras Kültürü ve Pastoral Topluluklar Giulio Palumbi vi Table of Contents Jafar Abad Kurgans Excavations (2010 Season) ................................................................................................... 89 Jafar Abad Kurganları Farshid İravani Ghadim Alternatif Ekonomiler: Yapısal-Sistemik Bakış Açısıyla Erken Transkafkasya Fenomeni................................. 112 Alternative Economies: The Early Transcaucasian Phenomenon in Structural-Systemic Perspective Toby C. Wilkinson The Changing Organisation of Kura Araxes Culture .......................................................................................... 121 Kura Aras Kültürü: Köken ve Göç Mitchell S. Rothman Painted Pottery of the Kura-Araxes Culture from the South Caucasus ............................................................... 132 Güney Kafkasya Kura-Araks Kültürü’nün Boyalı Seramiği Nino Shanshashvili, George Narimanishvili Revisiting South Caucasus-Iranian Azerbaijan Connections............................................................................... 145 Güney Kafkasya-İran Azerbaycan İlişkilerinin Bir Sorgulanması Karen S. Rubinson Attempt to Determine Origin, Chronology and Function of South Caucasus Trialeti Culture Bronze Rapiers .. 148 Güney Kafkasya Trialeti Kültürüne Ait Tunçtan İnce Kılıçların (Meçlerin) Kökeni, Kronolojisi ve İşlevini Belirleme Denemesi Zviad Sherazadishvili Shadly Kurgan Burial Mound: Various Tribal Cultures in the Early Bronze Age, Burial Practices and World-Views................................................................................................................................................. 156 Erken Tunç Çağ'da Anıtsal Kurganlar Bakhtilar Jalilov Doğu Anadolu ve Güney Kafkasya'da M.Ö. 5. ve 3. Binyıllar Arasında Hayvan Sömürüsü (Hayvanlardan İstifade Etme Yöntemleri) ................................................................................................................................... 168 Animal Exploitation, Social Organization and Economic Strategies in Eastern Anatolia and Southern Caucasus between the 5th and 3rd Millennia BC. Rémi Berthon Upper Euphrates Societies and Non-Sedentary Communities Linked to the Kura-Araxes World: Dynamics of Interaction as seen from Arslantepe ............................................................................................... 174 Arslantepe’de Görüldüğü Gibi, Yukarı Fırat Kültürleri ve Kura-Aras Dünyası ile İlişkili Yerleşik Olmayan Topluluklar Arasındakı Etkileşim Dinamiği Marcella Frangipane Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan) during the Kura-Araxes Period ............................................................................... 189 Batı Azerbaycan Erken Tunç Çağı Bertille Lyonnet, Farhad Guliyev, Laurence Bouquet, Laure Pecqueur, Modwene Poulmarc’h, Pascal Raymond, Anaïck Samzun The Kura-Araxes Pottery from Gegharot in its Cultural Context ........................................................................ 201 Gegharot'tan Kura-Aras Seramiği ve O’nun Kültürel Ortamı Samuel Haroutunian Menhirs from South Caucasus ............................................................................................................................. 212 Güney Kafkasya Menhirleri Goderdzi Narimanishvili, Nino Shanshashvili, Dimitri Narimanishvili Archaeometric Investigations of Kura-Araxes Ware: A Review......................................................................... 221 Kura Aras Seramiğine Yönelik Arkeometrik Araştırmalar: Genel Bir Değerlendirme Mustafa Kibaroğlu Early Farmers of Erzurum .................................................................................................................................. 231 Erzurum’un ilk Tarımcıları Süleyman Çiğdem, Birol Can International Symposium on East Anatolia—South Caucasus Cultures: Proceedings I The Development of the Kura Araxes Culture in Eastern Anatolia: Problems, Determinations and Suggestions... 241 Kura-Araks Kültürü’nün Doğu Anadolu Bölgesindeki Gelşimi: Sorunlar, Tanımlar ve Öneriler Mehmet Işıklı Interdisciplinary Studies on the Small Finds from the Settlements of Udabno I-III (Eastern Georgia) .............. 250 Doğu Gürcistan'da Udabno Yerleşimleri: Küçük Buluntuların Disiplinlerarası Çalışmaları René Kunze Doğu Karadeniz'de Erken Transkafkasya Kültürü: Ard Bölge Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme ........................... 258 Early Transcaucasian Culture of the Eastern Black Sea Region: A Review of the Gümüşhane Region Deniz Yaşin Meier, Belgin Aksoy Costume of the Ancient South Caucasian Population According to the Archaeological Materials (2nd Millennium BC.) ......................................................................................................................................... 266 Güney Kafkasya'da Giyim (M.Ö. 2. Binyılda) Dimitri Narimanishvili Between the Euphrates and Lake Van (On the Location of Hayaşa and Azzi) ................................................... 271 Fırat Nehri ile Van Gölü Arası: Hayaşa ve Azzi Ülkelerinin Lokalizasyonu Aram Kosyan Hititler ve Doğu Anadolu .................................................................................................................................... 277 The Hittites and Eastern Anatolia Rabia Özcan Kültepe Metinlerindeki Hurri Kültür Unsurlarının Doğu Anadolu’daki Kanıtları ve Hurrilerin Göç Yolları..... 289 The Evidence in Kültepe Texts for Hurrian Cultural Elements in Eastern Anatolia Hasan Ali Şahin Yakındoğu – Anadolu – Kafkasya Üçgeninde Kavimler Göçü ve Kültürel Etkileşimler.................................... 299 “Tribes Migration” and Cultural Interactions in the Triangle of the Near East-Anatolia-Caucasus Şamil Necefov, Anar Ağalar-zade Kul Tepe: New Research on Late Chalcolithic and Kura-Araxes Sites in NW Iran – First Results and New Perspectives .......................................................................................................................................... 304 Kültepe: Kuzey-Batı İran’daki Geç Kalkolitik ve Kura-Aras Yerleşimi Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar; İlk Sonuçlar ve Yeni Perspektifler Akbar Abedi Ethnographic References in Archaeological Inferences: Examples from Anatolia ............................................. 326 Arkeolojik Çıkarımlarda Etnografik Referanslar: Anadolu'dan Bazı Örnekler Jak Yakar Archaeological Investigations around the Gold Mines of Sotk, Armenia ........................................................... 342 Ermenistan Sotk Altın Yatakları Çevresindeki Arkeolojik Araştırmalar Arsen Bobokyhan, René Kunze, Khachatur Meliksetian, Ernst Pernicka, Harald Meller Prestigious Metals in Elite Tombs of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia: Provenance and Metallurgical Knowledge........................................................................................................................................................... 355 Erken Tunç Çağı Soylu Mezarlarındaki Prestij Metalleri: Buluntu ve Metalurjik Bilgi Michael Klaunzer, Ünsal Yalçın Erzurum Yöresinde Süt Ürünleri ve Etin Geleneksel Yöntemlerle Saklanması .................................................. 362 Traditional Preservation Methods for Dairy Products and Meat in the Erzurum Region Ahmet Uhri, Nurdan Çalkaya Güneybatı Azerbaycan’da Eski Kura Projesi: Mil Stepleri Kültürel Peyzajı ...................................................... 377 Kura Project in Southwestern Azerbaijan: The Mil Steppe Cultural Landscapes Barbara Helwing, Tevekkül Aliyev, Maria Bianca D’anna, Andrea Ricci The Gods Aššur and Ḫaldi in the Mountains ....................................................................................................... 388 Dağlık Bölgenin Tanrıları; Haldi ve Assur Yervan Grekyan vii viii Table of Contents Volume II Iron Age Considerations on the Belief Systems of the Early Iron Age Peoples in Lake Van Basin ...................................... 2 Van Gölü Havzası'nda Erken Demir Çağı Halklarının İnanç Sistemleri Üzerine Düşünceler Mahmut Bilge Baştürk Azatan: An Iron Age Fortification and Settlement in Shirak, (Armenia) .............................................................. 12 Azatan – Ermenistan Shirak’ta Bir Demir Çağı Kalesi ve Yerleşimi Dorothea Mauermann Urartu Çivi Yazıları Belgelerine Göre Güney Kafkasya’nın Bazı Küçük Beylikleri: Etiuni, Erikuahi, Uelki, Qu-Albani, Luipruani, Arquqiu ....................................................................................... 25 Some Small Principalities of Southern Caucasus According to Urartian Inscriptions: Etiuni, Erikuahi, Uelki, Qu-Albani, Luipruani, Arqiuqi Ramin Alizadeh Van Havzası’nda Post Urartu, Med ve Akhamenid Dönemlerinin Kültürel Tanımı Üzerine................................ 29 Over the Cultural Identification of Post Urartian, Median and Achaemenid Periods in the Van Basin Hatice Kalkan Van Ayanis Kalesi Kazıları Işığında Urartu'da Son Gelişmeler ............................................................................ 37 In the Light of Excavations on Van Ayanis Fortress: Recent Developments in Urartu Altan Çilingiroğlu Sikkeler Işığında Karadeniz'de Grek Etkisi (Güney Bölge) .................................................................................. 51 The Impact of Greece on the Black Sea Region in the Light of Numismatical Evidence Vedat Keleş Yeni Veriler Işığında Altıntepe Tapınak Kompleksi ............................................................................................. 60 In the Light of New Data: The Temple Complex at Altıntepe Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu, Mehmet Ali Yılmaz 2010-2011 American-Azerbaijani Excavations at Oğlanqala ................................................................................ 69 2010-2011 Yılında Oğlankale’de Amerika-Azerbaycan Kazıları Lauren Ristvet, Veli Bahşaliyev, Hilary Gopnik, Safar Ashurov Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia ............................................................... 84 Kafkasya ve Anadolu Mozaikleri Üzerine Analojik Gözlemler Birol Can A Heartland in Northeast Anatolia: Akçakale Island ............................................................................................ 97 Akçakale Adası Kazıları Yasin Topaloğlu Archaeology between Urartu and the Achaemenids ............................................................................................ 110 Urartu ve Akamenidler Arasında Arkeoloji Stephan Kroll In Search of the Late Hellenistic City of Tigranokerta ........................................................................................ 118 Geç Helenistik Tigranokerta Kentinin Araştırılması Annagret Plontke-Luening Erzincan Ovasındaki Geç Demir Çağ Seramiklerinin Değerlendirilmesi............................................................ 132 Evaluation of Late Iron Age Ceramics in the Erzincan Plain Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu, Halim Korucu Achaemenids-Type Painted Pottery in Central Transcaucasus and Eastern Anatolia – One Way of Development .....148 Merkezi Transkafkasya ve Doğu Anadolu’daki Akhamenid Tipi Boyalı Seramikler – Tek Yönlü Bir Gelişme Vakhtang Licheli International Symposium on East Anatolia—South Caucasus Cultures: Proceedings I Ağrı Dağı-Bozkurt Son Tunç-Erken Demir Çağ Kalesi ...................................................................................... 158 Mt. Ararat: Bozkurt Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Fortress Aynur Özfırat Bulanık ve Malazgirt’teki Bazı Demir Çağ Kaleleri ve Arzaşkun’un Yeri Sorunu............................................. 171 Some Iron Age Castles in Bulanık and Malazgirt Regions: The Problem of the Location of Arzaşkun Hanifi Biber Ayanis Kalesi'ndeki Haldi Tapınağı’nın Depo Odaları ....................................................................................... 183 Temple Storerooms in the Urartian Fortress at Ayanis Atilla Batmaz Melting Pot? – Urartu Bronz Kemer ve Plakalar Üzerindeki Geç Hititi Ekisi .................................................... 196 Melting Pot? – The Syro-Hittite Influence on Urartian Bronze Belts and Plaques Birgül Öğüt, Sanem Erdil-Kocaman Vishapakars: Current Approaches to Dating of Relief-Decorated Stone Stelae in Armenia ............................... 202 Vişapakars: Ermenistan’daki Kabartmalı Megalitlerin Arkeolojik Yönden İncelenmesi Arsen Bobokhyan, Alessandra Gilibert, Pavol Hnila Animal Husbandry in Urartian Kingdom ............................................................................................................ 214 Urartu Krallığı'nda Hayvancılık Ali Çiftçi Van-Kalecik Nekropolü'nden Urartu Takıları ..................................................................................................... 229 Urartian Jewellery from Kalecik Necropolis, Van Rafet Çavuşoğlu Erzurum Müzesi'nde Bulunan Urartu Dönemi Öncesine Ait Metal Silahların Kimyasal Yapısı ........................ 242 Chemical Structure of Metal Weapons Belonging to the Pre-Urartian Period Stored in the Erzurum Museum Gülşah Altunkaynak Doğu Anadolu Demir Çağı Kültürünün Güneye Yayılımı: Yukarı Dicle Havzasından Yeni Bulgular .............. 262 The Southern Expansion of the Eastern Anatolian Iron Age Culture: New Findings from the Upper Tigris Basin A. Tuba Ökse The People of the Northern Zagros Mountains and the Empires: From the Manneans to the Carduchians ........ 271 Kuzey Zagros Dağları Halkları ve İmparatorlukları: Mannalar'dan Karduklar'a Silvia Balatti Doğu Anadolu Kültürlerinde “Dağ” Kavramı ..................................................................................................... 279 The Concept of ''Mountain'' in Eastern Anatolian Cultures Hatice Ergürer Ships Depicted in the Küyünjik Reliefs and Their Interpretation ........................................................................ 294 Kuyuncuk Kabartmalarında Tasvir Edilen Gemiler ve İşlevleri Zaraza Friedman Ethnoarchaeology in Ayanis Village in Eastern Anatolia: Production, Storage and Consumption of Pastoral Products both in the Present and the Past .......................................................................................... 312 Van Ayanis Köyünde Etnoarkeoloji Özlem Çevik, Aylin Ü. Erdem Mediaeval Age Birkaç Örnek Işığında At Heykeli Formlu Mezar Taşları ve Mezar Taşlarında At Figürü ................................. 328 In the Light of Some Samples, Horse Shaped Grave Stones and Horse Figures on Grave Stones Ali Murat Aktemur Erzurum Kalesi Kazısı ......................................................................................................................................... 343 Excavations on Erzurum Castle Yavuz Günaşdı ix x Table of Contents Klasik ve Erken Ortaçağ Dönemlerinde Transkafkasya'da Anadolu'yu Hazar'a ve Türkistan'a Bağlayan Yollar Hakkında .................................................................................................................................................. 360 On the Routes in Trans-Caucasus connecting Anatolia to the Caspian and Turkestan in Antiquity and Early Middle Ages Mehmet Tezcan İran-Türkiye (Serahs-Trabzon) İpek Yolu (Doğubayazıt, Iğdır, Ani ) ................................................................ 377 Silk Road of Iran-Ani-Iğdır-Trabzon Hüseyin Yurttaş, Mohammad Reza Ghari Heidari İpek Yolunda Anadolu Köprüleri (Ani-Kars-Erzurum-Bayburt-Gümüşhane-Trabzon)...................................... 394 Anatolian Bridges on the Silk Road (Ani-Erzurum- Bayburt- Gümüşhane-Trabzon) Haldun Özkan Gravürlerle Erzurum ve Ani'ye Bakış.................................................................................................................. 420 An Overview of Ani and Erzurum using Etchings Mustafa Küçüköner Urartu Kale Kazıları (Pasinler Kalesi) ................................................................................................................. 432 Excavations on Pasinler Castle 2001 İbrahim Üngör XI.-XVIII. Yüzyıl Kuzeydoğu Anadolu Türk Mimarisinde Geleneksel ve Yerel Üslup Uzantıları ................... 443 Extensions of Traditional and Local Styles in Northeastern Anatolia: Turkish Architecture in the XI-XVIIIth Centuries Hamza Gündoğdu Defensive Devices in Ancient Underground Shelters: Comparison among the Sites of Aydıntepe, Ani, Ahlat and Cappadocia in Turkey ......................................................................................................................... 461 Eski Yeraltı Barınakları'ndaki Savunma Düzenekleri: Doğu Anadolu Yerleşimleri (Aydıntepe, Ani, Ahlat) ve Kapodokya Arasında Karşılaştırma Roberto Bixio, Andrea de Pascale Gürcistan'ın Sina'sı: Tao-Klarceti ........................................................................................................................ 481 The “Sinai” of Georgia: Tao Klarceti Fahriye Bayram Foreign Policy of George I and al-Hakim ........................................................................................................... 496 Birinci Giorgi’nin Dış Siyaseti ve Al-Hakimi George Narimanishvili Iğdır Kervansarayı Cephe Düzenlemesi ve Taş Süslemeleri ............................................................................... 501 The Facade and Stone Decorations of Iğdır Caravanserai Hasan Buyruk PREFACE Atatürk University was established in 1957 as the sixth state university in Turkey, and it has taken its unique place among the most successful educational institutions of the Republican Era. Over the years Atatürk University has grown to encompass 20 Faculties, 1 State Conservatory, 2 Professional Colleges, 12 Vocational Colleges, 7 Institutes and 20 Research Facilities. At present, the university employs 2622 teaching staff and provides academic services for almost 115,000 students. Atatürk University has become one of the most prestigious universities in Turkey and has earned a title as “the university establishing new universities” owing to its contribution to the establishment of other universities in the region and the transfer of a large number of academics who have assumed responsibilities and played important roles in the foundation of so many academic units at many other universities in Turkey. One of the greatest contributions of Atatürk University has been the promotion and development of Turkish archaeology, both regionally and on a global scale. From the beginning, the university indicated its commitment to archaeological pursuits with its support for the Pulur and Güzelova excavations, which were the first archaeological excavations in the region. The support of the university to studies in archaeology, history and art history has continued to increase throughout the following decades, and apart from the support in excavations and research, the university promotes and supports the projects of graduate students. The vast area extending from the Euphrates to the Caspian Sea, and from the Caucasian Mountains to Mesopotamia, has been the scene of many civilizations spanning thousands of years. It has maintained its strategic importance throughout history with its suitable geography for agricultural cultivation, raising animals and its location on important intercontinental trade routes. Multiple ethnicities, cultures, languages and religions have flourished in this region despite frequent disputes for various reasons. Our hope and responsibility is to hand down to future generations this unique geography and historically rich cultural structure with its characteristic differences, but with the strong commitment of the residents to their values and their tolerance. The International Symposium on Eastern Anatolia – Southern Caucasian Cultures has demonstrated that countries sharing this region are united in providing better futures for the rising generations. The ESRUC (Eurasian Silk Road Universities Consortium) organized the program and it was hosted by Atatürk University from October 10 - 13, 2012. International interest and participation in the Symposium by academicians and researchers, to a large extent from countries forming the Southern Caucasian cultures, proved once more that cultures in the region are pleased to exist together within this geography. This assumption also brings to the forefront the value of our university in its service to this mission as the president of ESRUC. I would like to extend my thanks to all those who laboured diligently for the successful organization of this Symposium and to all the participants for sharing their experiences with us. Prof. Dr. Hikmet KOÇAK Rector of Atatürk University, President of ESRUC, President of Turkic University Union xii Preface ÖNSÖZ Ülkemizin en köklü eğitim kurumlarından biri olan Atatürk Üniversitesi, 1957 yılında, Türkiye’nin altıncı üniversitesi ve Cumhuriyet döneminin en büyük eğitim kurumlarından biri olarak eğitim-öğretim hayatına başlamıştır. Kuruluşundan itibaren geçen 57 yılın ardından, bugün gelinen noktada 20 fakülte, 1 devlet konservatuvarı, 2 yüksekokul, 12 meslek yüksekokulu, 7 enstitü ve 20 araştırma merkezinde, toplam 2.622 öğretim elemanı ve yaklaşık 115.000 öğrencisiyle eğitim ve öğretime devam etmektedir. Bilimsel birikimiyle ülkemizin saygın ve köklü üniversitelerinden biri konumuna gelen ve bölgede başka üniversitelerin kurulmasındaki rolüyle “üniversite kuran üniversite” sıfatını hak eden Atatürk Üniversitesi’nde yetişmiş çok sayıda akademisyen, ülkemizin birçok üniversitesinin ve akademik birimlerin kurulmasında önemli görevler üstlenmişlerdir. Atatürk Üniversitesi’nin bölgesel ve evrensel anlamda bilim ve kültür adına yaptığı en büyük katkılardan biri de, hem bölgesel hem ulusal anlamda Türk Arkeolojisi serüveninin başlamasına ve yükseliş göstermesine öncülük etmesi olmuştur. Üniversitemiz, daha kuruluş yıllarında bölgede gerçekleştirilen ilk arkeolojik kazılar olan Pulur ve Güzelova kazılarına verdiği desteklerle geniş vizyonunu ispatlamıştır. Arkeoloji, Sanat Tarihi ve Tarih çalışmalarına verilen destekler artarak devam etmiş olup, kazı ve araştırmalar dışında genç araştırmacıların lisansüstü projelerine her türlü imkan sağlanmaktadır. Erzurum’un ve Üniversitemizin de içinde bulunduğu, Fırat nehrinden Hazar denizine, Kafkas dağlarından Mezopotamya’ya uzanan geniş topraklar, insanoğlunun binlerce yıllık kültürel gelişimine sahne olmuştur. Tarım ve hayvancılığa elverişli toprakları, önemli ticaret yollarının üstünde oluşu, kıtalararası konumu, en erken çağlardan günümüze kadar stratejik önemini korumasını sağlamıştır. Bölgedeki çok çeşitli etnik kimlikler, kültürler, diller ve dinler, zaman zaman yaşanan mücadelelere rağmen bu coğrafyanın nimetlerinin bilinciyle birlikte yaşamayı başarabilmişlerdir. Umudumuz, bu eşsiz coğrafyayı oluşturan toplumların -tüm farklılıklarına rağmen- sahip oldukları ortak değerlere olan bağlılıkları ve hoşgörüleriyle, tarihin derinliklerinden gelen bu zengin kültürel yapıyı daha da güçlendirerek gelecek kuşaklara taşımasıdır. 10-13 Ekim 2012 tarihinde, Atatürk Üniversitesi ev sahipliğinde ve Avrasya - İpek Yolu Üniversiteler Birliği (ESRUC) himayesinde gerçekleştirilen “Uluslararası Doğu Anadolu - Güney Kafkasya Kültürleri Sempozyumu”na, başta güney Kafkasya kültür bölgesini oluşturan ülkelerden olmak üzere gerçekleşen geniş çaplı katılım ve uluslararası ilgi, kültürlerin sosyal bilimler çatısı altında aynı dili konuştuğunu bir kez daha göstermiştir. Bu başarı, Üniversitemizin liderliğini yaptığı Avrasya - İpek Yolu Üniversiteler Birliği’nin (ESRUC) ne kadar önemli bir misyona hizmet ettiğinin kanıtlarından biri olmuştur. Bilim dünyasında yeni ufuklar açması ümidiyle gerçekleştirilen bu organizasyonda emeği geçenlere ve katılımcılara içten teşekkürlerimi sunuyorum. Prof. Dr. Hikmet KOÇAK Atatürk Üniversitesi Rektörü, ESRUC Başkanı, Türk Üniversiteler Birliği Başkanı FOREWORD Archaeology, Art History and History are subjects which have been showcased by universities in recent years and have never lost their popularity. Time and place are without doubt the most important elements for these scientific fields, which examine the distant and recent past of humans, both culturally and artistically. Geography, and those regions which create the cultures depending on it, come to the fore in the place-based dimension. This is important for archaeology but especially important for Near Eastern Archaeology, which is a significant branch of the science. The territories of our country have an extremely rich potential for the social sciences, which stems largely from the “bridge” position Anatolia has geopolitically. The lands of Anatolia and Thrace, which form a “transition zone” among the world’s major cultural regions, assume this role especially because of their locations sitting between the Eastern and Western worlds. The Eastern Anatolian Region, located in the eastern part of our country, has connections to Caucasia, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East, which are among the world’s most extremely important lands both strategically and culturally, and it remains a gateway to these regions. At the same time, these lands form an important field of study for archaeologists in understanding the stages which humanity and civilization have gone through. The research done, and excavations made, in these regions have proved the fact that these regions have had strong and intense cultural relationships with each other. With a history of nearly half a century, the Departments of Archaeology, Art History and History within the Faculty of Letters at Atatürk University are academic units which have made great advances in the shedding of light on civilizations and cultures over the lands of Anatolia. An international symposium entitled “The Forum of Civilisations along the Silk Road: International Symposium on East Anatolia – South Caucasus Cultures”, which was organized by ESRUC consortium and headed by the rectorship of our university in October 2012, constitutes a striking example of their recent efforts. Hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries attended this Symposium, which covered the centuries-long cultural history of this region and important neighbouring regions such as Caucasia. Information sharing, which constitutes the most important part of scientific study, was carried out at this international information feast, and culminates in this book that you hold in your hands, and it presents as a lasting work to the science world and future generations. Our most important wish is that this symposium and its proceedings, which are the work of a long-term journey and the labours of many people, will receive the attention it deserves by the scientific circles of Archaeology, Art History and History. I would like to thank very much everyone who has helped. Prof. Dr. Dilaver DÜZGÜN Dean of Faculty of Letters xiv Foreword ÖNSÖZ Arkeoloji, Sanat Tarihi ve Tarih bölümleri son yıllarda üniversitelerin vitrinlerinde öne çıkardıkları ve popülerliğini hiçbir zaman yitirmeyen bölümler olma özelliğine sahiptir. İnsanın uzak ve yakın geçmişini kültürel ve sanatsal açıdan inceleyen bu bilim dalları için zaman ve mekan tartışmasız en temel unsurlardır. Mekana dayalı boyutta coğrafya ve buna bağlı kültürleri yaratan bölgeler öne çıkmaktadır. Bu durum bilhassa arkeoloji özellikle de Arkeoloji’nin önemli bir bilim dalı olan Yakındoğu Arkeolojisi için önemlidir. Ülkemiz toprakları sosyal bilimler açısından son derece zengin bir potansiyele sahiptir. Bu zenginlik büyük oranda Anadolu’nun jeo-politik açıdan sahip olduğu “köprü” konumundan kaynaklanmaktadır. Dünyanın büyük kültür bölgeleri arasında bir “geçiş kuşağı” olma özelliği taşıyan Anadolu ve Trakya toprakları bilhassa doğu ve batı dünyaları arasında konumuyla bu rolünü üstlenmektedir. Ülkemiz topraklarının doğusunda kalan Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi ise Kafkasya, Ortadoğu, Orta Asya ve Uzak Doğu gibi dünyanın stratejik ve kültürel açıdan son derece önemli topraklarına bağlantı ve bu bölgelere açılan bir kapı olma özelliğine sahiptir. Arkeologlar için bu topraklar aynı zamanda insanlığın ve uygarlığın geçirdiği aşamaları anlayabilmek açısından son derece önemli bir çalışma alanı oluşturmaktadır. Bu yörelerde yapılan araştırmalar ve kazılar kültürel anlamda bu bölgelerin birbirleriyle var olan güçlü ve yoğun ilişkilerini kanıtlamaktadır. Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi bünyesinde yarım yüz yıla yakın bir geçmişe sahip olan Arkeoloji, Sanat Tarihi ve Tarih bölümleri Anadolu topraklarındaki uygarlıkların ve kültürlerin aydınlatılmasında büyük çaba sarf etmiş akademik birimlerdir. Bu çabalarının son dönemdeki çarpıcı bir örneğini 2012 yılının Ekim ayında Üniversitemiz rektörlüğü ve yine rektörlüğümüzün başkanlık ettiği ESRUC konsorsiyumunun bünyelerinde üniversitemizde düzenlenen “Doğu Anadolu ve Güney Kafkasya Kültürleri” başlıklı uluslararası bir sempozyum oluşturmaktadır. Bulunduğu bölgenin ve Kafkasya gibi önemli komşu bölgelerin binlerce yıllık kültürel geçmişini konu alan bu sempozyuma onlarca ülkeden yüzlerce bilim insanı katılmıştır. Bu uluslararası bilgi şöleninde, bilimsel çalışmaların en önemli ayağını oluşturan bilgi paylaşımı gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elinizde tuttuğunuz bu kitapla da bu bilgi şöleni ve paylaşımı taçlandırılmış, bilim dünyasına ve gelecek kuşaklara kalıcı bir eser olarak sunulmuştur. Uzun soluklu bir yolculuğun çok sayıda kişinin emeğinin eseri olan bu sempozyum ve onun bildiriler kitabının Arkeoloji, Sanat Tarihi ve Tarih bilim çevrelerince hak ettiği ilgiye ulaşması ve devamının gelmesi en önemli temennimizdir. Emeği olan herkese çok teşekkür etmekten mutluluk duyarım. Prof. Dr. Dilaver DÜZGÜN Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanı SYMPOSIUM OPENING ADDRESS The idea that gathers us here is to examine the things we have done, renew ourselves and to create new environments for young scientists to recognize new searches and methods. Probably, the most significant thing is to establish bridges between Archaeology departments, develop existing relationships and remain constantly in contact. These things will lead us to be aware of the plans and projects of one another. We are actually questioning the perception of education as well. Keep in mind that being and staying strong is only possible by adapting to change and observing developments. Reading the historical past is essential to constitute today and plan for the future. The values we reveal are saying so much without words. In an era when money is everything, all other things are valueless; you give meaning to life with what you produce. The foundations of our current lives are set in the past. Your studies are pivotal; you are digging up the memory of humanity. You are carrying yesterday to today and today to the future. You make contributions to the survival of cultures and their persistence. You are facing them with their roots. You have an attitude against tendencies that could lead to the corruption of cultures. Everybody would give similar answers when asked what are the paramount perils that menace humanity?: Disease, global warming, atomic bombs, wars. In my opinion, the most important threat is technology and clash of cultures. When technology develops with giant steps, it destroys culture. It empties life, makes it meaningless. You are the memory of society, you are its conscience. You confront us with the problems of this progress by your productions. I hope humanity will realize that technology is not everything. Our lives have been made easier with technology; however it also changes so many things. We have alienated society, separated from nature, is it worth it? You are scientists as well as artists. As Bertolt Brecht says “All of the arts contribute to the paramount art - that is to say, the art of living.” You are doing this. I want to conclude my speech with Nietzsche’s words: “Quit making noise (hanging out), the world is turning, silently, because of the ones who produce, who create new values.” Prof. Dr. Yılmaz ÖZBEK Former Dean of Faculty of Letters xvi Opening Address AÇILIŞ KONUŞMASI Bizi burada bir araya getiren düşünce yaptıklarımızı sorgulamak, kendimizi yenilemek, genç bilim insanlarının yeni arayışları, yöntemleri tanıyacağı ortamlar yaratmaktır. Belki de en önemlisi Arkeoloji Bölümleri arasında köprüler kurmak, var olan ilişkileri geliştirmek ve sürekli iletişim içinde olmaktır. Bütün bunlar birbirimizin yaptıklarından, yapacaklarından, plan ve projelerimizden haberdar olmaya yarayacaktır. Eğitim anlayışlarını da sorguluyoruz aslında burada. Bu tür toplantılar değişime katkı sağlıyorlar. Unutmayalım ki güçlü olmak, güçlü kalmak değişime uyum sağlamakla, gelişmeleri izlemekle ancak olasıdır. Bugünü kurmak, geleceği planlamak için tarihi geçmişi okumak gerekir. Gün ışığına çıkardığımız değerler konuşmadan çok şey anlatıyorlar. Aslında sizler yeniden üretiyorsunuz. Paranın her şey olduğu, her şeyin değerini yitirdiği bir çağda, ürettiklerinizle yaşama anlam katıyorsunuz. Bugünkü yaşamın temeli geçmişe atıldı. Bu çalışmalarınız çok önemli, insanlığın belleğini kazıyorsunuz. Dünü bugüne, bugünü yarınlara taşıyorsunuz. Kültürlerin yaşamasına, sürekliliğine katkı sağlıyorsunuz. Kökleriyle yüzleştiriyorsunuz. İnsanlığı, giderek anlamsızlaşan kültürel olarak fukaralaşmaya, yozlaşmaya, yüz tutmuş eğilimlere bir karşı duruş sergiliyorsunuz. Bugün insanlığı tehdit eden en büyük tehlikenin ne olduğu sorulduğunda herkes benzer şeyler söyleyecektir. Hastalıklar, küresel ısınma, atom bombası, savaşlar. Bana sorarsanız en büyük tehlike teknoloji ve kültür çatışmasının insanlığa yaşattıklarıdır. Teknoloji dev adımlarla ilerlerken, kültürü yok ediyor. Yaşamın içini boşaltıyor, onu anlamsızlaştırıyor. Sizler toplumun hafızalarısınız, vicdanlarısınız. Sizler ürettiklerinizle bu gidişin olumsuzluklarıyla yüzleştiriyorsunuz bizi. Umarım teknolojinin her şey olmadığının farkına varır insanlık. Teknolojinin yaşamımızı bu kadar çok değiştirdiği dünyada kolaylaştı yaşamımız. Topluma yabancılaştık, doğadan koptuk, değer miydi hiç? Sizler bilim insanı olmanızın yanı sıra birer sanatçısınız. Bertolt Brecht diyor ki: “Tüm sanatlar sanatların en büyüğü olan yaşam sanatına katkıda bulunur”. Sizler bu özeni gösteriyor, bunu yapıyorsunuz. Konuşmamı Nietzsche’nin şu sözleriyle sonlandırmak istiyorum: “Bırakın gürültü çıkarmayı (boşa oyalanmayı), dünya üretenlerin, yeni değerler yaratanların sayesinde dönüyor, hem de sessizce”. Prof. Dr. Yılmaz ÖZBEK Edebiyat Fakültesi Eski Dekanı INTRODUCTION The mountainous region of the South Caucasus and the northern region of the south-eastern Taurus Mountains constitute one of the most significant cultural areas of the Middle East, namely the “Eastern Anatolia-Southern Caucasus Cultural Region”. These highlands are the source of five crucial rivers – Euphrates, Tigris, Aras, Çoruh and Kura – that gave life to the civilizations of the Middle East; they also opened a door to the mystic East from the Western world. Owing to its strategic location, it has been one of the most critical regions in the world both culturally and politically, and it has been the route of massive movements throughout history. This situation led to the formation of multicultural and multilingual societies in the shadow of the Caucasus Mountains. It is even possible to see this multicultural structure in the region which lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, south of the Caucasus Mountains, and partly includes Anatolia. The historical, cultural and strategic importance of the Southern Caucasus has caused it to be an indispensable research field for most departments of social sciences. However, despite its rich potential, research in the area comprising modern-day Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan, North-western Iran and North-eastern Turkey is insufficient compared to other important culture basins such as Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean. Due to this insufficiency, it would be beneficial for wide-scope research to be undertaken to satisfy the lack of knowledge about the region and its environment. Organising a scientific forum where scientific research would be discussed from its beginnings (approximately a hundred years ago) to the present day, where chronic problems about the region’s political history would be argued, where an attempt to determine interregional relationships in the context of cultural interactions would be made, would also have the advantage of being a driving force for future studies. A workshop having this kind of comprehensive scope and important initiative for Eastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus would naturally be carried out in this region. It is no surprise to us that Atatürk University, which supports scientific study in all subjects, believed in the importance of this scientific project and mobilized all its resources. As a matter of fact, Atatürk University is an institution that, from its establishment, has supported not only regional but also universal scholarship, had an important effect on regional development, had a wide vision and mission, and counts a large number of scientists among its graduates, proving its title as the “University that establishes Universities”. In addition, the institution is the leader of the Eurasian Silk Road Universities Consortium (ESRUC). Our workshop, comprising 120 science and education institutions including universities and institutes under the patronage of a union (ESRUC) and hosted by Atatürk University, was realised on 10th to 13th October 2012 under the title of the “International Symposium on East Anatolia – Southern Caucasus Cultures”. In the symposium, where more than 100 researchers from 13 countries came together, presentations were given about the development of the region from its earliest times to the Middle Ages in the scope of Ancient History, Archaeology, Art History and Ethno-archaeology. Opinions were discussed and information shared, and it was agreed that this type of workshop is invaluable. This 2-volume book comprises 75 articles offered in the symposium which have been evaluated by an academic assembly. The scientific responsibility for these belongs to the authors. The English articles were edited by Ms Jan Bailey, B.A. (Honours), Grad. Dip. Ed., and the Turkish articles were edited by Professor Dr. Kazım Köktekin. The focus of the workshop – Eastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus cultural region – covers an extremely large geography, considering its interaction areas, and embraces different native cultures. After some consideration, it was decided that the articles should be ordered chronologically, as it is the most accepted methodology in Archaeology, and, as in the symposium programme, we have tried to achieve an ideal organisation regarding the fluidity, continuity of subject matter, regional relationships and connections. In addition to that, the languages of the symposium – Turkish and English – were accepted for the publication, with the Turkish articles having English summaries, and the English articles having Turkish summaries. This study is above all the project of Atatürk University. The best chance we had to achieve our goal – the symposium and then this book of articles – was through the close attention of the administrative units and their wide vision, and of course the physical facilities offered by the university. In this respect, we sincerely thank Atatürk University Rector, ESRUC (Eurasian Silk Road Universities Consortium) President and Turkic University President Professor Dr. Hikmet Koçak for his support for our studies and his close attention. Likewise, we have to thank ESRUC General Secretary Professor Dr. Sebahattin Tüzemen for his contributions to the achievement of the project under the patronage of the Eurasian Silk Road Universities Consortium and in its international quality. We cannot thank enough Atatürk University General Secretary Associate Professor Mustafa Arık, and the related departments of the university, for support and assistance, from the first idea of the Project to its conclusion as a scientific publication offered to scientific circles. Also, we thank former Dean of the Faculty of Letters Professor Dr. Yılmaz Özbek and Dean of the Faculty of Letters Prof. Dr. Dilaver Düzgün for their assistance in all kinds of correspondence and conversations in both the symposium and publication processes, and Head of Archaeology Department Professor Dr. Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu for sharing his experience and giving positive guidance. Last but not least, we are grateful to xviii Introduction all who contributed to the completion of this project, from the organisation of the Symposium to the publication of the Volumes of Articles: Firstly, our students and graduate students, secondly to all scientists who accepted our invitation to the symposium and shed light on cultural studies with their honest and sincere presentations and lastly we offer a special thanks to Jan Bailey for her help in the publishing process and for corresponding on our behalf with CSP. Without them, this project would never have been accomplished. To conclude, we thank Cambridge Scholars Publishing who have taken the responsibility for publishing the Symposium articles, and for their cooperation. Mehmet IŞIKLI & Birol CAN Editors ERZURUM 2015 International Symposium on East Anatolia—South Caucasus Cultures: Proceedings I xix SUNUŞ Kafkas dağlarının güneyi ve Güneydoğu Toroslar’ın kuzeyinde kalan dağlık coğrafya, Yakındoğu’nun en önemli kültür bölgelerinden biri olan “Doğu Anadolu - Güney Kafkasya Kültür Bölgesi”ni oluşturur. Yakındoğu uygarlıklarına hayat veren beş büyük akarsu olan Fırat, Dicle, Aras, Çoruh ve Kura nehirlerinin kaynaklarının da bulunduğu bu yüksek topraklar, aynı zamanda batı dünyasının mistik Asya’ya açılan kapısıdır. Bu stratejik konumu sebebiyle, kültürel ve siyasi tarihi açısından dünya üzerindeki en kritik bölgelerden biri olmuş, tarihin büyük kitlesel hareketlerinin güzergahında kalmıştır. Bu durum, Kafkas dağlarının gölgesinde çok kültürlü, çok dilli toplulukların oluşmasını sağlamıştır. Karadeniz ve Hazar denizi arasında uzanan Kafkas dağlarının güneyinde kalan, Anadolu’nun da kısmen dahil olduğu bölgede, bu çok kültürlü yapıyı bugün bile görmek mümkündür. Tarihsel, kültürel ve stratejik anlamdaki önemi, Güney Kafkasya’yı sosyal bilimlerin birçok dalı için vazgeçilmez bir araştırma sahası yapmıştır. Ancak, bu zengin potansiyeline rağmen “Doğu Anadolu-Güney Kafkasya Kültür Bölgesi” adıyla anılan, bugün Gürcistan, Ermenistan, Azerbaycan, Nahcivan, Kuzeybatı İran ve Kuzeydoğu Türkiye’yi kapsayan coğrafyaya yönelik araştırmalar, Mezopotamya, Akdeniz gibi diğer önemli kültür havzalarına kıyasla oldukça yetersiz kalmıştır. Bu eksiklikten yola çıkılarak, söz konusu bölge ve ilişkili olduğu çevreye yönelik olarak yapılacak geniş kapsamlı bir çalıştayın bu eksikliği gidermek konusunda oldukça faydalı olacağı anlaşılmıştır. Yaklaşık yüz yıl öncesinde başlayan ilk araştırmalardan günümüz bilimsel çalışmalarına kadar gelen sürecin tartışılacağı, bölgenin siyasal geçmişine yönelik müzmin sorunların masaya yatırılacağı, kültürel etkileşimler bağlamında bölgeler arası ilişkilerin saptanmaya çalışılacağı bilimsel temelli böyle bir organizasyon, aynı zamanda, bundan sonra yapılacak çalışmalara lokomotif görevi de üstlenecekti. Doğu Anadolu ve Güney Kafkasya’ya yönelik böyle geniş kapsamlı ve önemli misyonu olan çalıştayın doğal olarak bu bölgede gerçekleştirilmesi en doğrusu olacaktı. Her tür konuda bilimsel çalışmalara her zaman destek vermiş olan Atatürk Üniversitesi’nin bu bilimsel projenin önemine inanması ve tüm imkanlarını seferber etmesi bizi hiç şaşırtmamıştır. Nitekim kuruluşundan itibaren hem bölgesel hem evrensel anlamda önemli çalışmalara imza atmış, pek çok bilim insanı yetiştirmiş, bölgesel kalkınmada önemli pay sahibi olmuş Atatürk Üniversitesi sahip olduğu geniş vizyonunu ve misyonunu “Üniversiteler Kuran Üniversite” sıfatıyla da kanıtlamış bir kurumdur. Aynı zamanda, son yıllarda Kafkasya ve Orta Asya’ya yönelik başarılı açılımlar gerçekleştiren kurum, Avrasya – İpek Yolu Üniversiteler Birliği’nin (ESRUC) liderliğini yürütmektedir. Çalıştayımız, üniversiteler ve enstitülerden oluşan yaklaşık 120 bilim ve eğitim kurumunun üyesi olduğu bu birliğin (ESRUC) çatısı altında ve Atatürk Üniversitesi’nin ev sahipliğinde 10-13 Ekim 2012 tarihleri arasında “Uluslararası Doğu Anadolu – Güney Kafkasya Kültürleri Sempozyumu” adıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. 13 ülkeden 100’den fazla araştırmacının katıldığı sempozyumda, Eski Çağ Tarihi, Arkeoloji, Sanat Tarihi, Etnoarkeoloji bilim dalları kapsamında bölgenin en erken çağlardan ortaçağa kadar devam eden sürecine ilişkin özgün sunumlar yapılmış, fikirler tartışılmış, bilgi paylaşımı sağlanmış ve buna benzer tematik çalıştayların sürdürülmesi konusunda fikir birliğine varılmıştır. Elinizdeki, 2 cilt halinde hazırlanmış olan bu kitap, bu sempozyumda sunulan bildirilerin akademik kurul tarafından değerlendirilen 75 tanesini kapsamaktadır. Makalelerin bilimsel sorumlulukları yazarlarına aittir. İngilizce makalelerin redaksiyonu Jan Bailey, (BA Honours), Türkçe makalelerin redaksiyonu Prof. Dr. Kazım Köktekin tarafından yapılmıştır. Çalıştayın odağını oluşturan Doğu Anadolu ve Güney Kafkasya kültürel bölgesi, etkileşim alanıyla birlikte düşünüldüğünde oldukça geniş bir coğrafyaya yayıldığı görülür ki bu da farklı yerel kültürleri kapsamaktadır. Bu durum göz önünde bulundurularak, bildirilerin bölgesel bir sıralamayla kitapta yer almasının uygun olacağına karar verilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, Arkeoloji biliminin metodolojisi içinde en çok kabul gören yöntem olarak kronolojik düzenleme de göz ardı edilmemiş, bölgesel düzenleme yapılırken bildirilerin kronolojik sıralamaya uygun yerleştirilmesine de dikkat edilmiştir. Böylece, tıpkı sempozyum programında olduğu gibi, konuların akıcılığı, sürekliliği, birbirleriyle ilişkisi ve bağlantısı açısından ideal düzenlemeye ulaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bununla birlikte, sempozyum sunum dili olan Türkçe ve İngilizce, yayın için de kabul edilmiş, Türkçe makaleler için İngilizce özetler, İngilizce makaleler için Türkçe özetler eklenmiştir. Bu çalışma her şeyden önce Atatürk Üniversitesi’nin bir projesidir. Üniversitenin sahip olduğu zengin fiziksel imkanlar ve daha da önemlisi yönetim birimlerinin yakın ilgisi ve geniş vizyonu, gerek sempozyumun, gerekse bu bildiriler kitabının amaçlandığı gibi hayata geçirilmesinde en büyük şansımız olmuştur. Bu doğrultuda, öncelikle, Atatürk Üniversitesi Rektörü, Avrasya – İpek Yolu Üniversiteler Birliği (ESRUC) Başkanı ve Türk Üniversiteler Birliği Başkanı Prof. Dr. Hikmet Koçak’a çalışmalarımıza verdiği destekler ve yakın ilgisi için yürekten teşekkür ederiz. Aynı şekilde, projenin Avrasya – İpek Yolu Üniversiteler Birliği (ESRUC) himayesinde ve uluslararası nitelikte gerçekleştirilmesinde katkısı bulunan ESRUC Genel Sekreteri Prof. Dr. Sebahattin Tüzemen’e teşekkürü borç biliriz. Projenin fikir olarak ortaya çıkışından, bilimsel bir yayın olarak bilim camiasına sunulmasına kadar geçen süreçte yakın ilgisini hiçbir zaman esirgemeyen, her türlü ihtiyaçlar ve karşılaşılan zorluklarda tüm kapıların açılmasını sağlayan, herşeyden önce heyecanımızı bizimle paylaşan Atatürk Üniversitesi Genel Sekreteri Doç. Dr. Mustafa Arık’a ve Üniversitemizin ilgili birimlerine ne kadar teşekkür etsek azdır. Diğer yandan; sempozyum ve xx Introduction yayın aşamalarındaki her türlü yazışma ve görüşmelerde öncülük eden eski Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanı Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Özbek’e ve Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanı Prof. Dr. Dilaver Düzgün’e, tecrübeleri ve olumlu yönlendirmeleriyle çalışmalar süresince bizi cesaretlendiren Arkeoloji Bölümü Başkanı Prof. Dr. Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu’na buradan bir kez daha teşekkürlerimizi sunarız. Son olarak; büyük çaplı ve profesyonel bir ekip çalışması olan bu sempozyum organizasyonu ve bildiriler kitabı projesinin amaçlandığı gibi gerçekleştirilmesini sağlayan başta lisans ve lisansüstü öğrencilerimiz olmak üzere emeği geçen herkese, ayrıca davetimizi kabul ederek bu organizasyonda yer alan, özgün sunumlarıyla kültürel çalışmalara ışık tutan tüm bilimcilere minnet borçluyuz. Bu proje onlarsız olamazdı. Son olarak, yayın aşamasındaki her türlü yazışma, düzeltme ve diğer teknik işleri üstlenen Jan Bailey'e ve sempozyum bildirilerinin kitaplaştırılarak bilim camiasına sunulmasını üstlenen Cambridge Scholars Publishing’a işbirliği için sonsuz teşekkürler. Mehmet IŞIKLI & Birol CAN Editörler ERZURUM 2015 ANALOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE MOSAICS OF THE CAUCASUS AND ANATOLIA BİROL CAN Atatürk University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Archaeology, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey birolcan11@gmail.com It is generally accepted that there is a common cultural dominance in the area between the Caucasian Mountains and the Taurus Mountains/Northeast Anatolia from the earliest time periods until the end of the Bronze Age1. It is not surprising to encounter common – or at least similar – cultural marks here, regarding the similarity of the geographic and climatic conditions of the area2. It is unknown whether Mount Kaf is located in, or is referred to as, the Caucasian Mountains, but in the ancient literature these mountains are associated with mythical and legendary accounts 3 . According to Bronze Age myths, this location is where Zeus punished Prometheus by chaining him, and the legendary lands to which Jason came to steal the golden fleece with the assistance of the Argo sailors, the Argonauts. The continued pressure of Hittites, Assyrians, Cimmerians, Scythians, and Persians in the area from the Bronze Age is in question; however, the influence of these external powers did not extend beyond their military accomplishments4. We witness the area's ability to defend itself against these cultural effects during the Hellenization period, beginning with Alexander the Great, and followed by the Roman period. In particular, Rome used this land as a tax dependent kingdom (or state) due to the land's strategic significance, but allowed the region to remain politically autonomous. Also, they could not undertake serious restructuring (Romanization) compared to other lands commanded by Rome. In other words, the area was never affected by Hittite, Persian, Hellenic, or Roman cultures. We can say that the area, which could continue its isolated culture in its own precipitous geography, is only affected religiously and economically from these movements. The role of Christianity, highly accepted in the area in the 4th century AD and the colonial cities on the East coastline of the Black Sea, is a fundamental example of this. Artistic and cultural similarities in these periods can be explained through commercial relations, religious affiliations, and aesthetical tastes. In the state of Rome, economic and political life depended on military organization, whereas art and culture relied on the religious and economic systems. In addition to this, numerous other elements fused together during Rome’s reign, spreading across three continents. It is possible to see evidence of this interaction – formed over a long period – through works of art. The mosaic, which is one of the typical marks of Roman art, offers detailed information about social facts like culture, religion, and lifestyle. It is known that there are various mosaic production centres, such as in the Italian Peninsula, due to its central location within the empire; around the Mediterranean including Anatolia, due to its rooted past; and in North Africa, due to its strategic location within the geography of imperial Rome. Besides the plethora of finds, determining factors for these centres are the style of workshops and the area that can be traced in those finds. Certainly, mosaic production did not remain limited to these centres: mosaic pavements decorating various types of structures had taken place in almost every settlement during the ancient era. In general, the mosaics that are found in distant geographies are comparatively small; cities lacking defined mosaic workshops and schools contain the pieces produced under the effects of the aforementioned workshops. Given the relationship between the major production centres and secondary settlements (represented with less samples), it is generally accepted by researchers that these artists and mobile masters who were in the service of major production centres, were producing work based on order. The numbers of mosaics dated to the Roman period are relatively few in South Caucasia. One is located in Armenian Garni and three of them are found in Dzalissa, Suchuti, and Pityus, which are along the border of presentday Georgia (Figure 1). There is a Roman settlement in Garni, Armenia, approximately 32 km south-east of Yerevan. Today, the Mithra Temple and Bath constructions are relatively well preserved. A mythological description is found on the mosaic pavement on the ground of the frigidarium, with an apsis located in the eastern part of the Bath5 (Figure 2). Busts of 1 Ünal, 2002a: 172; Ünal, 2002b: 31 Işıklı, 2011: 21 et al. 3 Aeschlylus, Prometheus Desmotes, 718-723; Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica, II.360 vd.; Appianus, Historia Romana, XII (Mithridatic Wars) 15.103; Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, I.7.1; Arrianus, Periplus Ponti Euxini, XI.4; Herodotus, The Histories, I.203; Xenophon, Anabasis, IV.8.8 vd.; Ovid, Metamorphosis, II.224; Pausanias, Periegesis tes Hellados, V.11.6; Philostratus, Eikones, II.15; Strabo, Geographica, II.5.32, IV.1.7, XI.2.12,14-15,19, XV.1.8; Vergil, Aeneid, IV. 366 4 Herodotus, The Histories, IV. 11-13; Koşay–Vary, 1964, 6-9; Koşay, 1979: 45; Erzen, 1992: 40 et al; Çilingiroğlu, 1997: 47 5 Thierry–Donabedian, 1987: 529; Eraslan, 2010: Fig. 8 2 Birol Can 85 Oceanus and Tethys are situated side-by-side in the middle panel, and Triton, the Nereids, and Eros are depicted in the surrounding borders. These mosaics, dating to the second half of the 3rd century AD, are important because of their unity in Armenia. Besides being encountered almost everywhere in the Mediterranean basin, the best matches in style can be seen in Anatolia. As depicted in the Garni mosaic, other samples in which Oceanus and Tethys are shown together can only be seen in Anatolia – specifically in Antiocheia6 and Zeugma7. Additionally, depictions of wings on Tethys' hair can be seen in all representations of Tethys in Antiocheia and Zeugma. In the samples from Anatolia, labour qualities like vitality and perspective cannot be seen in the Garni mosaics – they have rigid contours. In the Villa and Bath complexes, uncovered through excavation in the Dzalissa and Mukhrani areas of Georgia between 1971 and 1974, several mosaic pavements dating to the 3rd century AD were found. A composition of figures is placed on the mosaic pavements formed by rectangular spaces of one of the rooms in the Villa (Figure 3). This place, also called the “Dionysus Hall”, takes its name from Dionysus’ depiction on this mosaic. This place is accepted as the triclinium part of the construction. Dionysus and Ariadne, situated on a kline, with Moses and servants around them, can be seen in the composition depicted in a semi-cross space in the middle. Dionysus iconography is a popular composition which is applied specifically in triclinium spaces in Villa structures 8 and can be seen frequently in Antiocheia9 and Zeugma10. The semi-cross main panel is surrounded by an astragal row. This rare application can be seen on Germanicia mosaics that are dated to the 4-5th centuries BC11. Personifications of the Seasons take place on the four corners of the middle panel and are surrounded with geometric and floral borders along the four sides. Iconography depicting the four Seasons is one of the most popular compositions of figures on many ancient mosaic pavements and can be seen frequently in Antiocheia12. Each of the four figures in Dzalissa is oriented towards the Dionysus scene in the middle, just like in “The Red Pavement”13 mosaic at Antiocheia Daphne and “Ge and the Seasons”14 mosaic at Antiocheia. In addition to this, the personification of Winter has its head covered with a scarf which differs from the other Seasons. Also, the other Seasons have short hair with garlands on their heads; all have pelerines, hold seasonal symbols in their hands, and are very similar with other seasonal depictions. Inferior and negligent depictions of the Seasons arise from both provincial workmanship and period, and are the only differences that can be seen on this mosaic. This negligence can also be observed in the qualitative difference of workmanship – particularly in the shadows of the figures that fall onto the ground. A scroll pattern (Ranke) band with portrait is found south of the figures depicted in the mosaics of Dzalissa’s Villa Dionysus Hall (Figure 4). The scroll pattern band with portrait is a very popular application of Roman mosaics that can be seen in many places, initially in the Eastern Mediterranean15. With the exception of some periodic differences in handiwork of details like leaves, flowers, etc., the closest examples can be observed at Antiocheia16 and Zeugma17. 6 “Oceanos and Tethys” mosaic of “House of the Calendar” dated to 2nd century BC: Cimok, 2000: 46-47; “Oceanos and Tethys” mosaic dated to 3rd century BC and situated in “House of the Boat of Psyche”: Cimok, 2000: 151; “Oceanos and Tethys” mosaic dated to 3rd century BC in “House of the Menander”: Cimok, 2000: 187; “House of the Oceanos and Tethys” mosaic dated to 3rd century BC: Levi, 1947: II. Pl. Lb-c 7 “House of the Oceanos” mosaics dated to end of 2nd century BC–beginning of 3rd century BC: Ergeç, 2006: 78-85; “House of the Poseidon” mosaics dated to end of 2nd century BC–beginning of 3rd century BC: Ergeç, 2006: 110-113 8 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: fn. 33, 34 9 “Drinking Contest” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “The Atrium House”: Cimok, 2000: 27; “Drunken Dionysus” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Drunken Dionysus”: Cimok, 2000: 51; “Bacchic Thiasos” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Bacchic Thiasos”: Cimok, 2000: 57; “Satyr, Dionysus and Maenad” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Bacchic Thiasos”: Cimok, 2000: 59; “Dionysus Scene” and “Triumph of Dionysus” mosaics dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Triumph of Dionysus”: Cimok, 2000: 91, 92; “Dionysian Scene” mosaic dated to 3rd century AD at “House of the Iphigenia”: Cimok, 2000: 105; “Dionysus and Ariadne” mosaic dated to end of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd century AD at “House of the Dionysus and Ariadne”: Cimok, 2000: 125; “Drinking Contest” mosaic dated to mid-3rd century AD at “House of the Drinking Contest”: Cimok, 2000: 135; “Dionysus” mosaic dated to first half of 4th century AD at “The Constantinian Villa”: Cimok, 2000: 221 10 “Triumph of Dionysus” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Poseidon”: Önal, 2005: 19; “Dionysus and Ariadne” mosaic dated to end of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd century AD at “House of the Dionysus”: Ergeç, 2006: 45-49; “Dionysus Returns from India” mosaic dated to end of 2nd century AD at “House of the Poseidon”: Ergeç, 2006: 106-109; “Dionysus–Telete– Skyrtos” mosaic dated to end of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd century AD at “House of the Poseidon”: Ergeç, 2006: 134-135; “Dionysus and Ariadne” mosaic dated to end of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd century AD at “House of the Euphrates”: Ergeç, 2006: 168-171 11 Ersoy, 2012: 108, 114, Figure 1, 14 12 “Red Pavement” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Red Pavement”: Cimok, 2000: 74, 75, 81, 84; “Seasons” mosaic dated to second half of 3rd century AD at “House of the Drinking Contest”: Cimok, 2000: 139, 140, 141, 142, 143; “Seasons” mosaics dated to first half of 4th century AD at “The Constantinian Villa”: Cimok, 2000: 205, 207, 209, 211; “Ge and the Seasons” mosaic dated to second half of 5th century AD at “House of Ge and Seasons”: Cimok, 2000: 276, 278, 279, 280 13 Cimok, 2000: 74, 75, 81, 84 14 Cimok, 2000: 276, 278, 279, 280 15 Spiro, 1978: II. Pl. 122-125; Balty, 1977: 24; Balty, 1995: 334, II.2; Dunbabin, 1999: 44, 120, Fig. 43, 122; Cimok, 2001: Fig. 37, 43, 92; Bowersock, 2006: 8 16 Border of panel themed “The Judgment of Paris” dated to beginning of 2nd century AD at triclinium of Antiocheia “Atrium House”: Levi, 1947: II. Pl. Ib; Dunbabin, 1999: 163, Fig. 166; Cimok, 2000: 29; Border mosaics of “The Constantinian Villa” in Antiocheia Daphne that are dated to first half/mid-4th century AD: Levi, 1947: II. Pl. LVII.a,b; Dunbabin, 1999: 165, Fig. 169-170; 86 Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia Rectangular borders surround the main panel from east and west. In both, similar rectangular geometric applications were used. Tile patterns were formed with crosswise grills which were made up of red and blue tesserae. This pattern can often be observed in Zeugma18 and Antiocheia mosaics19. A tile pattern can be seen in the rectangular panel which is found at the north end of the main panel. In this location, tiles are larger and lines are formed with 6-7 rows of white tesserae. Thin ivy decoration is found on these lines. Large tiles are filled with dark red and greenish-yellow tesserae while leafed palmettos are found within semicircular spaces in the triangular areas at the corners. Geometric orders can also be seen in the square panels that are placed at the north-east and north-west corners of the area. The most comparable examples can be seen on the border of the “Masks” mosaic dating to the 4th century AD at Antiocheia Daphne20. Another close sample can be observed in the Erzincan-Altıntepe Church mosaics21. The triclinium room named “Dionysus Hall” of the Dzalissa Villa construction resembles other samples at Antiocheia in terms of general planning. “Dionysus Hall” is composed of various panels and borders. In all likelihood, geometric borders were given a place at the edge on which klines were placed whereas the figural compositions were located in the middle where they could be viewed by everyone. One of the similar examples of this arrangement can be observed on the ground of the “Atrium House” dating to the beginnings of the 2nd century BC in Antiocheia22. Three large panels in the middle, with geometric borders on the sides, are found in the “T”- shaped mosaic arrangement of the Antiocheia sample. These geometric borders are sections on which klines are situated in both samples. Another similar application of these samples is the panels at the entrance which are arranged towards the door, whereas other panels are situated towards the klines. In the “Dionysus Hall” mosaic, Ranke with portrait faces the entrance where Dionysus-Ariadne and the Seasons’ compositions face the klines. Within the Antiocheia “Atrium House” triclinium, the “Drinking Contest” composition is located near the entrance whereas the “Judgment of Paris” and “Aphrodite and Adonis” compositions are situated near the klines. A similar application is seen in the “Dionysus Villa” at Zeugma, which is dated to end of the 2nd century BC 23. Here, Dionysus’ composition is located near the entrance and a Pasiphae composition is oriented towards the Klines. A frame, formed with tangential triangles and which can be seen around the north border of the “Dionysus Border”, is common in the Roman period. These triangles, situated in the emblema part, are arranged in such a way that the outer triangles are dark while the inner ones are light-coloured in the overall examples24 dating to the 3rd Cimok, 2000: 201; “Europa and Bull” mosaics dated to 3rd century AD at Antiocheia “House of the Boat of Psyches”: Cimok, 2000: 153 17 “Eros and Psyche” mosaic dated to 2nd and 3rd century AD at Zeugma “House of Poseidon”: Önal, 2005: 28; “Women at Breakfast” mosaic dated to 2nd and 3rd century AD at Zeugma: Önal, 2005: 61; Ergeç, 2006: 188-191; “Eros and Psykhe” mosaics dated to end of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd century AD at Zeugma “House of Poseidon”: Önal, 2005: 28; Ergeç, 2006: 138141 18 “Honeymoon of Dionysus and Ariadne” mosaic at Zeugma “Euphrates Villa”: Ergeç, 2006: 168-169 19 “Tryphe and Bios” mosaic dated to late 2nd and early 3rd century AD at Antiocheia “House of the Drunken Dionysus”: Cimok, 2000: 54-55; “Comus” mosaic border at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 62; “Medusa Head” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at Antiocheia Daphne “House of the Red Pavement”: Cimok, 2000: 89; “Narcissus and Echo” mosaic of “House of the Drunken Dionysus” dated to 3rd century AD of “House of the Drunken Dionysus” in a Roman villa at Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 115; “A Season” mosaic dated to 3rd century AD existing near to Daphne Theatre: Cimok, 2000: 189; “Amerimnia” mosaic dated to first quarter of 3rd century AD in a grave complex in Mount of Silpius (Habib Neccar): Cimok, 2000: 199 20 Cimok, 2000: 239 21 Can, 2009: 8, Fig. 8 22 Cimok, 2000: 25 23 Ergeç, 2006: 105-107 24 “Drinking Contest of Dionysus and Heracles” mosaic dated to beginning of 2nd century AD at triclinium of Antiocheia “Atrium House”: Levi, 1947: II. Pl. I.a; Dunbabin, 1999: 162, Fig. 165; Cimok, 2000: 27; “The Judgment of Paris” mosaic dated to beginning of 2nd century AD at triclinium of Antiocheia “Atrium House”: Levi, 1947: II. Pl. I.b; Campbell, 1988: Pl. 70; Balty, 1995: 369, XXXVII.2; Cimok, 2000: 29; “Aphrodite and Adonis” mosaic dated to beginning of 2nd century AD at triclinium of Antiocheia “Atrium House” : Levi, 1947, II.: Pl. II.a; Campbell, 1988: Pl. 71; Geometric panels dated to 2nd century BC of “House of the Evil Eye” Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 38, 39, 40, 41; “Drunken Dionysus” mosaic dated to 2nd century AD at “House of the Drunken Dionysus” Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 51; “Tigris” mosaic of “House of Kilikia” dated to 2nd century AD at Seleucia Pieria: Cimok, 2000: 65; “Pyramos” mosaic of “House of Kilikia” dated to 2nd century AD at Seleucia Pieria: Cimok, 2000: 67; “Birds” mosaic of “House of the Red Pavement” dated to 2nd century AD at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 86, 87; “Medusa Head” mosaic of “House of the Red Pavement” dated to 2nd century AD at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 89; “Rivers” mosaic of “House of the Porticos” dated to beginning of 3rd century AD at Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 98, 99, 100, 101; "Iphigenia in Aulis” mosaic of “House of Iphigenia” dated to beginning of 3rd century AD at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 107; “Lycurgus Entangled in the Vine” mosaic in the triclinium of “House of the Boat of Psyches” dated to beginning of 3rd century AD at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 163; Hellenistic mosaic in Pergamon Palace V: Bingöl, 1997: 84, Abb. 57-58; A mosaic dated to second half of the 1st century AD and first half of the second century AD in Bologna, Italy: Blake, 1935: Pl. 28.3; A geometric mosaic dated to end of second century AD and beginning of 3rd century AD from Jerusalem: Ovadiah, 1980: 310, Fig. 2; Centaur Bath mosaics dated to 5th century BC in Corinth: Dunbabin, 1999: 6, Fig. 2; West Palace mosaic dated to end of 1st century BC at Masada, Palestine: Dunbabin, 1999: 188, Fig. 200; No:2 The mosaics of peristyle house dated to mid first century BC in Pergamon: Dunbabin, 1999: 224, Fig. 235 Birol Can 87 century BC. This order is reversed in examples 25 which are dated after the 3rd century BC. Some examples, specifically dated within the 3rd century, include both types. This chronological change can be seen initially in the Antiocheia and Cilicia environs. Another structure found at Dzalissa is the Bath. Its mosaic has survived to this day and involves geometric designs26. The pattern consists of square and rectangular panels. Panels are separated from each other with bands that are filled with reciprocal triangle/equilateral triangle/grinder/layered pyramid patterns. Bands formed with equilateral triangles were commonly used and can be seen at many centres in Anatolia. Each of the square and rectangular panels is adorned with geometric elements. An application in which circles take place, one within the other, and in which flower rosettes are created within the empty places, is in the square panels that are formed in the shape of a modillion. A similar pattern can be seen in the Bodrum-Torba Monastery Complex's Bath dating to the 5th century AD27. The design, which is also a popular geometric border pattern during the Roman period, arises through intersecting circles in the rectangular panel. It can be understood from the ruins that, in addition to geometric elements, figural compositions also existed in the Dzalissa Bath's frigidarium. In one of these ruins, a scene related to the sea takes place in the rectangular panel which is just in front of the door (Figure 5). On this panel, of which very little remains, a dolphin's nose, eye, and a little mussel can be seen. A similar dolphin can be observed in the Bath at Garni. This panel is surrounded by a rainbow style with frame lines and little bay leaves. Another mosaic in the same place is arranged in the shape of apses (Figure 6). Similarly, a sea-related scene takes place in an area that has mostly been destroyed. Two fish heads can be seen inside of a basket, which is hung by a rope from a branch. Remaining mosaics from this ancient era are not only important in artistic and archaeological manners but also for their detailed visual evidence of this period's social structure, beliefs, traditions, and lifestyles. Some compositions on the mosaics are products of travelling-artists who worked according to the demands of the owner and therefore they only create a visual effect at the place where it belongs. In addition to this, most of the mosaics have a parallel composition with the function of the space, lifestyle, fauna and flora of the area. In this concern, Dzalissa mosaics have a composition that resembles the place where they are found. A scene relating to Dionysus in the Villa’s triclinium mosaic is an indicator that the composition of the mosaic resembles the setting. Presence of such a scene in an area in which guests are hosted and feasts are organized is a sign of the balance between subject and context. In addition, Dzalissa and its immediate environs have been a wine production area since ancient times and thus it cannot be a coincidence that such a scene takes place here. Using a scene related to the sea in mosaics of the Dzalissa Bath is another example of this parallel application. The effect of the Antiocheia mosaic style is seen strongly in the Dzalissa mosaics28, dating from 230-270 AD. It is very similar to the Antiocheia's mosaics dating from 235-312 AD. Besides being dated to similar periods, the mosaics at Dzalissa resemble the work of an unskilled labourer, likely a travelling mosaic artist who knew the Antiocheia style, rather than the product of a mosaic workshop, which utilized local materials and was supported by local artists. Sukhumi, located on the coast of the Black Sea at Abkhazia-Georgia, was founded as the farthest colony of Milet in the 6th century BC and was named Dioscurias. Its reputation was earned through the slave trade. Later, after the establishment of a Roman garrison, the name changed to Sebastopolis by order of Rome’s first emperor, Augustus. Mosaic pavements are located in the apodyterium of a bath which is dated to the second half of the 4th century AD at Sebastopolis (Figure 7). A very similar reference to the geometrical arrangement that was used here and with a star in the centre can be seen at Zeugma’s “Dionysus Villa” dating to the end of the 2nd century BC29. Pityus is located in Bichvinta, in Abkhazia – a land in western Georgia today. According to Procopius, Pityus, founded during the Colchis Kingdom period, was a garrisoned castle built against the risk coming from this place30. The city was within the borders of the local Lazica Kingdom between the 4th and 6th century BC31. Pityus’ basilica belongs to the late ancient era and contains several building phases. Pieces of mosaics, dating between the 4th and 6th century BC, were found in the Baptisterium that is located in the narthex of the Basilica and at 25 “Tryphe and Bios” mosaic dated to late 3rd century-early 4th century AD at Antiocheia “House of the Drunken Dionysus”: Cimok, 2000: 54-55; “Chresis” mosaic dated to first half of 4th century AD of “House of the Triumph of Dionysus” at Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 95; Tarsus Mosaic dated to first half of 3rd century AD: Cimok, 2000: 144, 145, 146, 147; “Dionysus and Ariadne” mosaic of “House of Sun Dial” dated to 3rd century AD at Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 191, 192, 193; “Soteria” mosaic of “Bath of Apolausis” dated to second half of 5th century AD near to Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 234, 235; “Spring”, “Summer” and “Winter” mosaics of “House of Ge and the Seasons” dated to late 5th century AD at Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 278, 279, 280; “Dedicatory Inscription” mosaic dated to 526 AD and belongs to a bath in Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 302; Arapaj mosaic dated to 4th century AD in Duures/Dyrrachium–Albania; Mariamin–Musicians mosaic dated to last quarter of 4th century AD at Hama Museum–Syria: Balty, 1977: 94; The mosaics of room 2 in Bath E dated to first half of the 4th century AD at Antiocheia: Campbell, 1988: Pl. 8; A mosaic dated to 5th century AD from Salymbira/Silivri: Cimok, 2001: 163, Fig. 91; Triclinium mosaics of “House of Dionysus” dated to early 3rd century AD at Nea Paphos–Cyprus: Dunbabin, 1999: 227, Fig. 239; 229, Fig. 241; 6th century AD dated mosaics of St. Demetrius Basilica in Greece: Kitzinger, 1963: Fig 16; “House of Euphrates” mosaics dated to first half of 3rd century at Zeugma: Önal, 2005: 52-53 26 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: 20-22, Abb. 15-17 27 Özet, 2009: 80, Fig. 26 28 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: 26 29 Ergeç, 2006: 106-107 30 Procopius, Le Bello Gothico, IV.4 31 Pillinger–Zimmermann 1995: 31 88 Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia the altar of the structure. In the Baptisterium, a rectangular panel depicts a sprinkler in the shape of a vase with birds trying to drink water (Figure 8). A sprinkler, in the shape of a vase, was also depicted on the mosaic panel at the altar, this one presenting a deer and two birds. This iconography is popular in Hellenistic and Roman period mosaics. In the late ancient era, Pagan-based compositions can be seen on Christian figurations and the subject here is accepted with allegorical meanings such as “baptism ceremony” or “Garden of Eden”. It is quite possible to see many similar examples of this composition in the Mediterranean, especially along the seashore32. A geometrical composition is found on another mosaic in the Baptisterium of Pityus’ Basilica (Figure 9). Bird figures are placed in circular spaces and lozenges between rainbow and geometrical bands which are situated within one another. Solomon’s Knot pattern was used in octagonal spaces. One can see examples of more recent usage of interlaced geometrical and rainbow bands with some design differences, especially in Cilicia33. As a more specific example, Erzincan Altıntepe mosaics, dated to the mid-6th century BC, can be considered as this kind of band usage34. In general, this geometrical arrangement sample that we have observed in Pityus shows unskilled labour even though it is dated to an earlier period. By comparison with other samples dated from this same century in the Mediterranean basin, this situation is more noticeable than mentioned before and can be explained as an expression of local labour and its distance from mosaic centres. The scroll pattern placed in the border on another mosaic in the altar at Pityus’ Basilica (Figure 10) is a popular element in Cilicia mosaics. Scroll patterns within borders found in the structure at Apameia dating to the last quarter of 5th century AD35 have many similarities such as figural compositions and leaf ornaments. Pillinger and Zimmermann mention a mosaic workshop that functioned since the 3rd century AD in Pityus36. More mosaic pieces were found in this city than other cities of the area and the existence of a typical vase-shaped sprinkler pattern may lead us to consider this. Because of the city’s strategic location, Pityus possessed a military importance in addition to access to ports which provided a movement in trading life and enabled an intensive relationship with other centres such as Anatolia, the Eastern Mediterranean, and North Africa 37 . This commercial, cultural, and artistic relationship is seen in the coins and ceramic findings that are provided through the excavations of the city38. Although it is possible to talk about the originality of some patterns on the mosaics, there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a local mosaic school. Also, both Pityus’ and Sukhumi’s garrisons were founded under the leadership of Rome's Asia Minor principality. At the same time, Anatolia’s original construction materials -especially Proconessos marble- were used as decoration elements in the town’s planning of activities in the area39. This fact about material and labour is also valid for the remaining mosaics. The direct and indirect effect of Anatolia's and the Eastern Mediterranean's rooted culture on distant geographies is not limited to the ancient period. İstanbul’s Hagia Sophia, which is one of the greatest structures of the mediaeval era, was built with orientalist effects and became a model for monuments built both in its period and after in structural and artistic manners. The Theotokos mosaics, located in the semi-dome above the apses at the Gelati Monastery and dating to 1125-1130 AD in Georgia’s Kutaisi City (Figure 11), imitate the Hagia Sophia's south galleries (Figure 12)40, both in dealing with the topic and in technical application. The similarity is so obvious that one could say that the artists and masters of the Hagia Sophia school worked at Gelati. The last example that I will mention in this article is the Naval Cathedral of Saint Nicholas which was built in St. Petersburg, Russia, along the east coast of the Baltic Sea. Although outside of the temporal and spatial focus of this article, this example is worthy of mention as it shows the continuity of the cultural interaction within this period. Two persons played fundamental roles in the construction process of the cathedral which was built between 1903 and 1913. One important person is the famous architect of the cathedral, Neo-Byzantine architectural specialist, Vasily Kosyakov. The other is Admiral Stepan Makarov, commander of the Kronstadt naval base, who had previously been the attaché to Istanbul. Makarov had cancelled the previous project of the Cathedral’s structure by sending Kosyakov to Istanbul between the years 1900-1901 to understand all the details about original Byzantine architecture. Makarov convinced the Russian Czar, Nikolay the 2nd, to approve Kosyakov’s project and personally advocated to apply the rules that were used in the Hagia Sophia in this project too. In addition to structural similarities between these two constructions and despite centuries between the constructions of these structures, the repetition of the mosaic style – 32 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: 38; Frescos of Nikaia Hypogeon dated to 4th century AD: Brenk, 1977: 135; Floor mosaics of Hammam Lif (Naro) Synagogue that are dated to 6th century AD in Tunisia: Fine, 2005: 125, Fig. 46; Mosaics of a 5th century dated grave in Borj El Youdi at Tunisia: Yacoub, 2003: 10; A mosaic pavement from Hama–Syria: Balty, 1977: 139; “Birds and the Crater” mosaic of “House of the Sun Dial” dated to 3rd century AD at Antiocheia: Cimok, 2000: 194 33 A mosaic pavement dated to 533 AD in Apamea Cathedral Complex in Syria: Balty, 1977: 143; 6th century AD dated mosaics of a monastery from Tall Bi'a – Syria: Brands, 2002: Taf. 3d; Mosaics of a basilica dated to first quarter of 6th century AD at Anemurium: Campbell, 1998: Pl. 190; A geometrical mosaic dated to first half of the 5th century AD from Antiocheia Daphne: Cimok, 2000: 240 34 Can, 2009: 8, Fig. 8; Can, 2011: 227, Fig. 3 35 Balty, 1977: 118; Balty, 1995: Pl. XXIV.2 36 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: 58 37 Roman garrisons situated on Black Sea coast with ports, like Pityus and Asparos, reserve less local produced findings in comparison with inner-land settlements: Kakhidze, 2008: 319-324; Mamuladze ve Kakhidze, 2009: 89-93 38 Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: 60 39 Berdzenishvili, 2009: 202 40 White, 2004: 70-72 Birol Can 89 just like the Theotokos depictions – (Figure 13) is further evidence of this inspiration. As seen in the St. Nicholas example, the Seraphim angels, located at both sides of the Theotokos, form pendentives carrying the main dome within the Hagia Sophia. In conclusion, the cultural development and embodiment of south Caucasian influence during the classical period, situated on the Silk Road, was determined by its close relation with Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean region. This fact is also visible in the mosaics found. The similarities between Cilicia and North Syria are clearer than other regions. It seems that Anatolia, which never lost its vitality within the long process starting from thousands of years ago to today, will continue inspiring projects in the future as a cultural base. Özet/Abstract Kafkasya ve Anadolu Mozaikleri Üzerine Analojik Gözlemler Antikçağ mozaiklerinde görülen konu birliği ve tipolojik benzerlikler, buluntu merkezlerinin birbirleriyle ilişki ve etkileşimlerine dair ipuçları verebilmektedir. Aynı zamanda, yerleşik atölyelerin yanı sıra gezici çalışan ustaların taşıdıkları unsurların ve yerel tercihlerin tespitinde de aydınlatıcı olabilmektedir. Coğrafik uzaklığa, kültürel ve mezhepsel farklılığa rağmen, inanç birliği, teknik deneyim, ticari kökenli iletişim ve etkileşimler ve özellikle de estetik kaygısı, benzer motif ve ikonografilerin uzak merkezlerde benzer biçimde uygulanmasını sağlamıştır. Bu bağlamda, Kafkasya ve Anadolu mozaikleri arasında, özgün yerel unsurlara rağmen yakın benzerlikler gözlenmesi gayet doğaldır. Bu bildiri kapsamında bu iki bölge arasındaki mozaiklerin belirgin benzerlikleri ve farklılıklarına dikkat çekilmekte, olası sanatsal ilişkiler aydınlatılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Bibliography/Kaynakça Balty, J. 1977, Mosaiques Antiques De Syrie. Balty, J. 1995, Mosaiques Antiques Du Proche-Orient. Berdzenishvili, I. 2009, “The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Abkhazia in the Early Middle Ages” Georgian Art in the Context of European and Asian Cultures / 1st International Symposium of Georgian Culture-Proceedings (Eds. P. Skinner – D. Tumanishvili) 201-204. Bingöl, O. 1997, Malerei und Mosaik der Antike in der Türkei. Blake, M.E. 1935, Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy. Bowersock, G.W. 2006, Mosaics as History. Brands, G. 2002, “Ammerkungen zu spaetantiken Bodenmosaiken aus Nordsyrien” Jahrbuch Für Antike und Christentum 45, 122-136. Brenk, B. 1977, Spaetantike und Frühes Christentum. Campbell, S. 1988, The Mosaics of Antioch. Campbell, S. 1998, The Mosaics of Anemurium. Can, B. 2009, “Erzincan Altıntepe Church with Mosaic” Journal of Mosaic Research 3, 5-13. Can, B. 2011, “Technical, Stylistic, Iconographic Evaluation and Dating of Mosaics of Altıntepe Church” XI. International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th - 20th 2009, Bursa, Turkey (Ed. M. Şahin) 225-234. Cimok, F. 2000, A Corpus, Antioch Mosaics. Cimok, F. 2001, Mosaics in İstanbul. Çilingiroğlu, A. 1997, Urartu Krallığı, Tarihi ve Sanatı. Dunbabin, K.M.D. 1999, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Eraslan, Ş. 2010, Roma İmparatorluk Dönemi Mozaik Sanatında Okeanos ve Tethys Betimlemeleri (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation). Ergeç, R. 2006, Belkıs–Zeugma ve Mozaikleri. Ersoy, A. 2012, “Kahramanmaraş, Merkez, Germanicia Antik Kenti Mozaikli Alan 2009-2010 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı” 20. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 95-114. Erzen, A. 1992, Doğu Anadolu ve Urartular – Eastern Anatolia and Urartians. Fine, S. 2005, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World. Işıklı, M. 2011, Doğu Anadolu Erken Transkafkasya Kültürü. Kakhidze, E. 2008, “Apsaros: A Roman Fort in Southwestern Georgia” Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region, Between Conflict and Coexistence (Eds. P.G. Bilde – J.H. Petersen) 303-332. Khroushkova, L. 2007, Les monuments chrétiens de la côte orentale de la Mer Noire Abkhazie (IVe - XIVe siècles) (Bibliothèque de l antiquité tardive 9). Kitzinger, E. 1963, “Stylistic Developments in Pavement Mosaics in the Greek East from the Age of Constantine to the Age of Justinian” La Mosaique Greco-Romaine, 341-352. Koşay, H.Z. 1979, “Erzurum ve Çevresinin Dip Tarihi, Prehistor ve Protohistuarı” Atatürk Üniversitesi 50. Yıl Armağanı, 39-64. Koşay H.Z. – H. Vary 1964, Pulur Kazısı, 1960 Mevsimi Çalışmaları Raporu. Levi, D. 1947, Antioch Mosaic Pavements I-II. 90 Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia Mamuladze, S. – E. Kakhidze 2009, “Apsarus: The Roman Acculturation Centre in the Eastern Black Sea Area” Georgian Art in the Context of European and Asian Cultures / 1st International Symposium of Georgian Culture Proceedings (Eds. P. Skinner – D. Tumanishvili) 89-93. Ovadiah, A. 1980, “Mosaic Pavements Discovered in the Last Decade in Israel (1970-1980)” III. Colloquio Internazionale Sul Mosaico Antico, 309-320. Önal, M. 2005, Mosaics of Zeugma. Özet, A. 2009, “Bodrum–Torba Monastery Mosaics” Journal of Mosaic Research 3, 71-82. Pillinger, R. – B. Zimmermann 1995, Spaetantike und frühchristliche Mosaike in Georgien. Spiro, M. 1978, Critical Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements on the Greek Mainland, Fourth/Sixth Centuries, Vol. II. Thierry, J.M. – P. Donabedian 1987, Les Arts Armeniens. Ünal, A. 2002a, Hititler Devrinde Anadolu 1. Ünal, A. 2002b, “Eskiçağda Kafkasya ve Anadolu” Kuban–Maykop Kültürleri ile Eski Anadolu Kültürlerinin İlişkileri (Kaf-Der Çorum Paneli Tebliğleri) 3-33. White A. 2004, “Bizans Dönemi Mozaik Süslemeleri” Ayasofya (Eds. W.E. Kleinbauer – A. White – H. Matthews) 49-80. Yacoub, M. 2003, Stone Paintings, The Mosaics of Bardo Museum. Figure 1. Caucasus Region Birol Can Figure 2. Frigidarium Mosaic, Garni Bath, Armenia Figure 3. Central Panel of Triclinium Mosaic, Dzalissa Villa, Georgia (Pillinger-Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 1) 91 92 Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia Figure 4. Southern Bordure of Triclinium Mosaic, Dzalissa Villa, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 12) Figure 5. Frigidarium Mosaic, Dzalissa Bath, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 18) Birol Can Figure 6. Frigidarium Mosaic, Dzalissa Bath, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann,1995: Abb. 19) Figure 7. Apodyterium Mosaic, Sukhumi (Sebastopolis) Bath, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 23) 93 94 Analogical Observations on the Mosaics of the Caucasus and Anatolia Figure 8. Baptisterium Mosaic, Bicvinta (Pityus) Basilica, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 27) Figure 9. Baptisterium Mosaic, Bicvinta (Pityus) Basilica, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 29) Birol Can Figure 10. Altar Area Mosaic, Bicvinta (Pityus) Basilica, Georgia (Pillinger–Zimmermann, 1995: Abb. 31) Figure 11. Theotokos Mosaic, Gelati Monastery, Georgia 95