Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosXXIXChroniques des travaux archéologi...Preliminary Report on the Eight S...

Chroniques des travaux archéologiques en Turquie 2020

Preliminary Report on the Eight Season of the Konya Ereğli, Karapınar, Halkapınar and Emirgazi Survey Project (KEYAR) 2020

Çiğdem Maner
p. 109-127

Texte intégral

  • 1 For previous field season reports see Anatolia Antiqua XXII-XXVIII and Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantı (...)

1The aim of the eighth field season of the Konya Ereğli, Karapınar, Halkapınar and Emirgazi Survey Project (henceforth KEYAR)1 was to continue the investigation and systematic survey of the Bronze and Iron ages monuments, structures and settlements at the provinces of Karapınar, Emirgazi and Ereğli. The field season started on 16th August and ended on 13th September 2020. Enver Akgün from the Konya Museum joined us as the representative of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism Directorate of Antiquities and Museums. The survey is generously supported by Koç University and Avis Turkey, which provides us with a jeep for the survey (indispensable, since the region is very mountainous). Dr Belgin Aksoy (Uludağ University), Muhip Çarkı (Koç University PhD student), Dr Emre Kuruçayırlı (Boğaziçi University) and Dicle Yaz (Koç University MA student) joined the KEYAR 2020 team. I am grateful to my team, Enver Bey, our driver Sadiye Kaya, Özkoçlar Otel and our sponsors. The Emniyet Müdürlüğü (police headquarters) at Karapınar helped us to take drone images of Alitepe Höyüğü and the Meke Gölü crater lake. I would like to thank especially head commissioner of the Emniyet Müdürlüğü, Muharrem Mete, whose initial training was as an archaeologist, for his support in helping us take drone images of Meke Gölü and Alitepe Höyüğü. Finally, I am grateful to Fahri Kaymak, who shared with us information about a Luwian inscription in his house at Karaören (Emirgazi), which was removed in December 2020. Moreover I would like to thank Mustafa Yılmaz, former muhtar of Oymalı, for sharing his knowledge about the history of his village.

2The 2020 was an extraordinary season because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We worked according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Health of Turkey and the WHO and we were able to conduct and finish the survey without any incidents.

Investigations by KEYAR in 2020

3It was a very hot and dry summer: the first week of September was around 55-60 °C outdoors. The dryness of the soil and the extensive corn and sunflower fields are a major obstacle for an archaeological survey in the southeast of the Konya Plain, because settlements, and höyük sites are covered by crops and the soil is so dry and covered with bushes that most of the time it is difficult to identify pottery. All of the seasons have been tried, except winter and early spring, and it seems that the best months to conduct an archaeological survey in this region are October, November, March and April. There are no crops, the soil is wet and pottery is visible, sites are not covered with dense plants.

4The survey started as an archaeological survey project, but with every season some additional dimensions were added, such as a geoenvironmental survey, a geophysical survey, public and community archaeology, ethnoarchaeology and also oral history recordings. Hence, it is possible to have a more holistic view about the region, which reflects its rich cultural heritage. Ethnoarchaeology and oral history are particularly important for this region, in order to record the last remnants of peasants, nomads, pastoralist societies and their customs, lives and local knowledge. The region has undergone vast changes in a short time period, and the more people leave the traditional way of life and move to cities, the more important it is for people to keep hold of their knowledge, customs, stories and experiences. With every season and with every story we are getting closer to unveil the history and archaeology of the southeastern Konya plain. The 2020 survey season led to an important discovery - a slab with Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription, probably dating to the time period of Tuthaliya IV, used as a doorjamb at a village house in Karaören (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 A spolia: Karaören 2

Fig. 1 A spolia: Karaören 2

Surveyed Sites

  • 2 Ovacık Krater Yerleşimi (No. 90) has not been surveyed again, only a site number has been issued, a (...)

5During the 2020 survey campaign, sites in the Ereğli, Emirgazi and Karapınar districts were surveyed. In total eleven sites have been systematically investigated (see Fig. 2 and Table 1).2 Furthermore, the main cemetery (Çetmi Mezarlığı) and Sultan Selimiye Külliyesi at Karapınar were investigated as well, to record ancient stones and monuments, used as spolia. The methodology has been described in previous articles and will not be repeated here. The site numbering system started in 2013 and is successive.

Fig. 2 Map showing systematically surveyed sites during the 2020 field season

Fig. 2 Map showing systematically surveyed sites during the 2020 field season

Table 1 Surveyed sites in 2020

Settlement Number

Settlement Name

Province and District

Altitude (m)

80

Karaören Yerleşimi

Emirgazi, Karaören

1319

81

Gıcan Kalesi

Emirgazi, Karaören

1539

82

Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi

Ereğli, Belkaya

1196

83

Salma Tepe

Karapınar, Oymalı

1057

84

Demirtepe

Karapınar, Oymalı

1135

85

Adaca Ağıl Karakol

Karapınar, Oymalı

1102

86

Dağören

Karapınar, Oymalı

1732

87

Oymalı Asar Kale

Karapınar, Oymalı

1183

88

Rakka Höyük

Karapınar, Sazlıpınar

1075

89

Yeşiltepe Höyük

Karapınar, İslik

1009

90

Ovacık Krater Yerleşimi

Karapınar, Yeşilyurt

1548

91

Alitepe Höyüğü

Karapınar Merkez

1023

80. Karaören Yerleşimi

  • 3 https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-162927/konya-ili-emirgazi-ilcesi-karaoren-koyunden-kaybolan-lu-.html

6Since 2015, a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription (henceforth Karaören 1) at Karaören which was once used as a sitting stone and step in front of an abandoned village house (Fig. 3), has been missing. This inscription was the subject of an international search by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey and Interpol.3 Our first investigation of Karaören was during the 2015 survey season, because we had been notified by the Hittitologist Prof. Metin Alparslan from Istanbul University about the absence of Karaören 1 in the spring of 2015. When Alparslan visited Karaören upon the invitation of Nizamettin Tezcan, who discovered Karaören 1, and had published a photo of it in his poetry book (2011), he observed that it was missing.

Fig. 3 Karaören 1; missing since 2015. Searched for by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey and Interpol

Fig. 3 Karaören 1; missing since 2015. Searched for by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey and Interpol

N. Tezcan

  • 4 A detailed article on Karacadağ, its research history and the decipherment of Karaören 1 is forthco (...)

7Karaören is a village situated on the northern part of Karacadağ at around 1319 MASL and around 6.5 km south-southwest of Emirgazi. The KEYAR team tried to investigate it in 2015 and 2016 (Maner, 2017). The ruins cover an area of around 48 ha, located to the north of the village. Foundations and remains of houses and graves are visible, but pottery is very rare. Villagers have built their houses with building stones from these ruins (Fig. 4) and the spolia are mainly Byzantine. Villagers state that churches used to stand here as well. During the 19th and 20th century, these ruins were dismantled and sold. According to the villagers, the stones from Karaören have been carried on donkeys and camels to Karapınar, Emirgazi, Ereğli and their villages and even as far as Konya, Bor and Niğde. Since our permit for the KEYAR survey is limited to the Bronze and Iron ages, and does not include the Roman and Byzantine periods, we couldn’t continue our research, as at that time no pottery or remains related to the survey periods had been discovered.4

Fig. 4 Karaören, a village on Karacadağ built with spolia from the adjacent Late Antique ruins

Fig. 4 Karaören, a village on Karacadağ built with spolia from the adjacent Late Antique ruins

8However, the search conducted by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey and Interpol for Karaören 1 since 2015, has so far been unsuccessful. After the survey in 2015, I tried to find the owner of the house where Karaören 1 was discovered, which took more than a year. In 2016, the owner (Mr. Fahri Kaymak) was invited to the Konya Ereğli Museum to discuss the discovery of the inscription. Kaymak hadn’t been to his village for more than 30 years, and was surprised and very angry to hear that the slab, which he remembered very well, was missing. He also explained where the slab was discovered, how deep he had to dig to find it and how he lifted it out. However, he did not want to travel with us to his village to show us the spot where he found it, or to visit his house.

9After 2016, I lost contact with Mr. Kaymak until 17 August 2020, when I was able to find his new phone number and called him. The plan was that 2020 would be the final survey season and I wanted to tackle Karaören once more to see if there were any remains of this very important Luwian inscription. This time Kaymak agreed to come with us to his village and we went on 18 August early in the morning. He explained that Karaören 1 was excavated from ruins located north of Karaören, and was discovered at a depth of about 10 m. The ruins he showed us were Byzantine, which suggests that the Luwian inscription was used as a spolia already in the Byzantine Period. The inscription was one of a number of slabs taken to his house to be used as building stones. Kaymak said that he broke the inscription in several pieces because it was large and heavy. As we were standing in front of his house, I encouraged him to tell us about the rest of slab, the part he broke off (Fig. 4). Kaymak decided to share his secret with us, with mixed feelings, which led to the discovery of Karaören 2 (Fig. 2). Karaören 2 is probably a part of Karaören 1 and one of the most important discoveries of Anatolian archaeology in 2020.

Fig. 5 The house owner Fahri Kaymak in front of his house, where Karaören 1 and Karaören 2 have been discovered

Fig. 5 The house owner Fahri Kaymak in front of his house, where Karaören 1 and Karaören 2 have been discovered

Fig. 6 Karaören 2 used as a door jamb

Fig. 6 Karaören 2 used as a door jamb
  • 5 A detailed publication on Karaören 2 is in preparation.

10Karaören 2 was used as a door jamb at the left corner. The slab is 82 x 44 x 23.5 cm large and has a light grey rose colour and is made of basalt. During the discovery, two lines of inscription of Hieroglyphic Luwian made in relief technique were visible on the narrow side, towards the door (Figs. 1, 6). The front side had no inscription, as it was chiselled off. The back of the slab was covered with another stone block which was plastered on the inner side as it was part of a wall inside the house. By squeezing a finger through a tiny opening on the back, it was possible to determine that the inscription continued also on the reverse side. After the necessary permissions were issued, Karaören 2 was removed from the house on December 8th 2020, and is now kept in the Konya Ereğli Museum. The reverse turned out to have two lines of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription made in relief technique. Both inscriptions – Karaören 1 and 2 – date to the Late Bronze Age, probably the time period of Tuthaliya IV (13th c. BC). Karaören 1 mentions a military campaign to the West (Maner, Weeden & Alparslan, 2021) and Karaören 2 also mentions military campaigns and the cult related to Mount Sarpa.5 Karaören 1 and Karaören 2 are probably parts of a larger inscribed block, which was discovered in Emirgazi, and is known as Emirgazi 2.

81. Gıcan Kalesi

11The fort, which is known by locals as Gıcan Kalesi is located ca. 2.9 km south of Karaören, on the slopes of the Karacadağ (Fig. 2). İbrahim Gündüz mentions this fort briefly in his book about Karapınar (1980, p. 198). The fort is 206 (NW-SE) x 72 (E-W) m large and is located at 1540 MASL (Fig. 7). The fortification walls of the fort are in some parts preserved up to 3-4 m in height. They are made in cyclopean masonry using large boulders which are slightly shaped (Fig. 8). The structures within the fort are not preserved, and since foundations are covered with boulders, it is not possible to reconstruct a building inside. However, the drone image shows towards the south-eastern section remains of several buildings (Fig. 7). High outcrops inside the fort must have been used as observation points, some structures may have been built on them, but they are not preserved. The pottery dates of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and Iron Ages (Fig. 9). It specifically shows that it was used during the Hittite Period and it must have been in alliance with and related to the settlement in Karaören.

Fig. 7 Gıcan Kalesi (drone image)

Fig. 7 Gıcan Kalesi (drone image)

Fig. 8 Western fortification wall of Gıcan Kalesi

Fig. 8 Western fortification wall of Gıcan Kalesi

Fig. 9 Pottery from Gıcan Kalesi

Fig. 9 Pottery from Gıcan Kalesi

82. Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi

12Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi is located on the northern part of Arısama Dağı, also known as Kötü Dağ (Fig. 2). It is the so called first settlement of Belkaya, located 3.9 km northwest of Belkaya and on the eastern part of Mount Arısama at 1196 MASL. Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi was investigated already in 2014, and Sarıçören Kalesi (No. 39) was surveyed (Maner, 2015, p. 267). However, as the weather was very bad and it was the last day of the survey further investigations were not possible.

Fig. 10 Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi, rock massif with wall to the right

Fig. 10 Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi, rock massif with wall to the right

Fig. 11 Rocks with marks (Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi)

Fig. 11 Rocks with marks (Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi)

Fig. 12 Middle Iron Age sherd from Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi

Fig. 12 Middle Iron Age sherd from Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi

13We returned here during the 2020 survey season. The systematic survey was around the rock massif, which was already observed in 2014 (Fig. 10). This rock massif is around 46 (N-S) x 35 (E-W) m large. Systematically positioned holes on the rock suggest that this rock massif was probably used as a stone quarry. On the drone image, Figure 9, the wall mentioned already in my 2015 report (Maner, 2015, pp. 267-269) is clearly visible. The wall is on the eastern side of the rock outcrop and seems to protect the stone quarry. The holes on the rocks of the rock massif remind one of the techniques where a hole is made in the rock, a wooden stick is placed in it and water is poured on it to explode the rock (Fig. 11). The pottery collected around this rock massif dates to the Iron Age (Fig. 12), with a single sherd possibly dating to the Late Bronze Age.

83. Salma Tepesi

14Salma Tepesi is located around 2.7 km southeast of Oymalı (Figs. 2, 13). On top of a natural hill foundations of a structure is visible. Some structures are circular, which remind of graves and therefore the site is interpreted as a necropolis. Some foundations have been excavated by looters. However, no bones were observed and pottery too is scarce. The necropolis is around 150 x 160 m large and extends to the northeast. Presumably, this was the necropolis of the villages on the southeastern slope of Karacadağ and of Demirtepe (No. 84) and Adaca Ağıl Karakol (No. 85). Six sherds have been found, five are not diagnostic, and one is a rim fragment, probably dating to Late Iron Age.

Fig. 13 Google Earth screenshot showing Salma Tepesi and Oymalı Asar Kale

Fig. 13 Google Earth screenshot showing Salma Tepesi and Oymalı Asar Kale

84. Demirtepe

15Demirtepe is located 500 m south of Oymalı (Fig. 2). Remains of foundations on this hill suggest a small fort. The stone foundations cover an area of around 77 x 55 m. Few sherds were found, dating to the Middle and Late Iron Age. This fort controlled very likely the road coming from southeast (Ereğli) to the Karacadağ. This road network was quite important as it was the only route, which did not lead through the marshes along the eastern slope of the Karacadağ.

85. Adaca Ağıl Karakol

16Adaca Ağıl Karakol (karakol is the Turkish word for fort) is located 2.7 km southeast of Oymalı (Fig. 2). Remains of foundations made of medium-sized boulders cover an area of 60 x 58 m and form three circles (Fig. 14). They might belong to a fort, which controls the road along the eastern slope of the Karacadağ. The few discovered sherds date to the Late Iron Age and Byzantine period.

Fig. 14 Adaca Ağıl Karakol (drone image)

Fig. 14 Adaca Ağıl Karakol (drone image)

86. Dağören

17Dağören is located on Karacadağ at 1732 MASL and is situated around 3.5 km north-northeast of Oymalı (Fig. 2). Dağören, as already indicated in the name “ören”, is an ancient ruin on top of the mountain and is located on the eastern slope of Karacadağ. The ancient settlement is located to the east of a ridge, and is well protected. It covers an area of around 280 (N-S) x 276 (E-W) m, around 20.2 ha (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15 Dağören (drone image)

Fig. 15 Dağören (drone image)

18Dağören is very difficult to reach. One needs to leave the car by the water depot above the village Oymalı and from here it is a hike up the mountain, which takes around 4 hours (down only 3!). We had a shepherd and his donkey from Oymalı who helped to carry supplies and equipment and guided us through the mountain.

  • 6 Diary entry: http://gertrudebell.ncl.ac.uk/diary_details.php?diary_id=614

19Dağören has been visited shortly by T. Callandar in 1904 (1906, pp. 176-77) and soon after by Getrude M. Lowthian Bell in 1906 (Ramsay & Bell, 1908). Callander dates the settlement because of stylistic and iconographic details to the Byzantine Period. Bell describes the ruins briefly and mentions a church with wine leaf decoration and a fort above Dağören.6 Klaus Belke and Marcel Restle visited Dağören shortly in the 1970’s during their research for Tabula Imperii Byzantinii (1984, p. 155). They describe Dağören as “Ruinen einer größeren byzantinischen Stadtanlage” and assume that Dağören is the refuge settlement of Hydē, which they locate in Gölören, north of Karacadağ. Furthermore, they state that the fort mentioned by Bell is a small monastery and not a fort.

20Upon our arrival in Dağören, the widespread remains of the settlement were very impressive. In some buildings walls were preserved up to 3-4 m. Various masonries were observed, which probably date to different building periods. Several churches (Fig. 16), graves (Fig. 17) and domestic buildings could be identified. Slabs with decoration of crosses, grapes, and wine leaves and inscriptions were documented (Fig. 18). Illicit excavations are mainly inside the churches (Fig. 16). As the ground was covered with stones and bushes very few sherds were found, however among them were some sherds dating to the Iron Age. Upon the arrival on the mountain, after the hike up the slope, remains of a long wall, oriented east-west is visible (Fig. 19). It is not really clear what this wall is for; it might be a fortification wall, protecting the entrance to Dağören. A similar settlement is located on Hasandağ, ancient Mokisos, also known as Nora, which is a refuge settlement dating to the 6th c. AD (Berger, 1998, 2017). As the ascent and descent takes a long time, leaving little time of the mountain, it is planned to stay in Dağören overnight during the 2021 survey season, to investigate it in a more detailed and systematic way.

Fig. 16 Remains of a church in Dağören

Fig. 16 Remains of a church in Dağören

Fig. 17 Roman or Early Byzantine (?) grave at Dağören

Fig. 17 Roman or Early Byzantine (?) grave at Dağören

Fig. 18 Rectangular slab with crosses and grapes

Fig. 18 Rectangular slab with crosses and grapes

Fig. 19 Fortification wall (?) of Dağören

Fig. 19 Fortification wall (?) of Dağören

21Shepherds use the ruins of Dağören and its stones to build pens and small huts for themselves. The communities who live on the slopes of Karacadağ make their living mainly with animal husbandry. Shepherds stay for 9 months on Karacadağ with flocks of sheep and goats. According to the locals, villagers from Oymalı, Akören, Ekizli, etc., have been taking their building stones from Dağören, carrying them down with donkeys and camels. They even have been brought as far as Ereğli and Hotamış. Hence, one needs to consider Dağören and other sites on the Karacadağ as a possible provenance, when basalt monuments are discovered in a radius of around 100 km in this region.

87. Oymalı Asar Kale

22Asar Kale is located 1.7 km southeast of Oymalı on top of a hill. Foundations indicate a rectangular building, which is 101 (N-S) x 85 (E-W) m large (Fig. 2, 10). The building is divided in three sections. Its function is unclear. Very few sherds have been found, which date to Late Iron Age and Byzantine periods.

88. Rakka Höyük

23Rakka Höyük is a registered site, but had not been surveyed before. The höyük is used as a cemetery nowadays, the survey being conducted outside the area of the cemetery. The site is located inside the district town Sazlıpınar, and is around 179 (N-S) x 166 (E-W) m large around 2 m high (Fig. 20). The pottery collected from the slopes of the höyük date to the Early Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Fig. 21).

Fig. 20 Rakka Höyük

Fig. 20 Rakka Höyük

Fig. 21 LBA and Iron Age pottery from Rakka Höyük

Fig. 21 LBA and Iron Age pottery from Rakka Höyük

89. Yeşiltepe Höyük

24The höyük is located on the highway from İslik to Karpınar on the left side and 1.9 km northeast of İslik (Figs. 2, 22). The shallow mound is ca. 2 m high and 126 (N-S) x 136 m (E-W) large. No architectural remains were observed, and the pottery dates to the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Late Bronze Ages, and Iron Ages. On the slope a fragment of a bronze metal shield was discovered. The settlement is located on a strategic important road to Karaman, which indicates its importance (Fig. 23).

Fig. 22 Yeşiltepe Höyük

Fig. 22 Yeşiltepe Höyük

Fig. 23 Pottery from Yeşiltepe Höyük

Fig. 23 Pottery from Yeşiltepe Höyük

90. Ovacık Krater Yerleşimi

25The Ovacık crater had been investigated in 2016 and 2017. However, due to the fact the remains seem to be Roman and Late Antique, and the crater was densely covered with brushwood and pottery was not visible, a site number was not assigned. Iron Age pottery fragments, were shown to us from Ovacık during this season. Further investigations will be conducted during the 2021 season, as it was not on the survey list for 2020. However, a site number was assigned during this season.

91. Alitepe Höyüğü

26Alitepe Höyüğü is located in the centre of the province of Karapınar. The settlement mound has been transformed into a park, and has unfortunately lost its archaeological significance. James Mellaart had a chance to survey this site. It seems to be an important EBA site among other periods (Mellaart, 1963).

27The mound is located on the southern edge of the Karapınar Lake and is around 4.9 ha large and around 18 m high (Fig. 24). Due to the landscaping project and the transformation into a park, a systematic archaeological survey was not possible and will never be possible again. However, its location and size indicate that it was an important settlement. Alitepe Höyüğü is one of the larger sites in the Karapınar region, together with Kuru Höyük, Tilkili Höyük, Yağmapınar Höyük, Gedemen Höyük and Sırnık Höyük.

Fig. 24 Alitepe Höyüğü (drone image)

Fig. 24 Alitepe Höyüğü (drone image)

Conclusion and Future Work

  1. The strategic location of Gıcan Kalesi (No. 81) is immensely important, overlooking the northern settlements of Karacadağ such as Karaören and Ekizli for example. From here, a clear view of Emirgazi, Arısama Dağı, the road from Belkaya – Emirgazi – Kulak Yaylası towards Sultanhanı (Aksaray) and Karapınar is provided, which underlines its geopolitical importance. Even if the fort on Arısama Dağı has not revealed Bronze or Iron Age pottery and seems to be Byzantine, there must have been a Hittite predecessor here as well. From this spot, the same road Kutören – Emirgazi – Aksaray can be observed clearly and it makes sense if there is a fort on Karacadağ overlooking this main road and one on Arısama Dağı to protect the road from both sides, which looks like a narrow channel.

    • 7 Özcan proposes that UDA is located at Maltepesi Höyük (Özcan, 2007).

    Six monuments with Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription had been discovered in Emirgazi, among them inscribed altars, and two rectangular blocks with inscriptions (Masson, 1979). All of them are made of light grey basalt. Also Karaören 2 is made of light grey basalt. Emirgazi is located on the slope of Arısama Dağı, however the KEYAR survey showed that the basalt from Arısama Dağı has a different colour. Hence, it might be important to overthink the origin respectively meaning of the Emirgazi monuments. Either basalt from Karacadağ was used to produce these monuments instead of the black and red basalt from Arısama Dağı and some of them were positioned on the slope of Arısama Dağı. Another option is that they were standing at Maltepesi Höyük, a small settlement (höyük) on the southwestern slope of Arısama Dağ– Kötü Dağ.7 Or they might have been moved from Karaören already in antiquity (or later) to Emirgazi and Arısama Dağı. Which would mean that they are originally from Karaören. Another option is, that the settlement of Karaören during the Hittite Period covered the whole area including Emirgazi, to protect the main road and the frontiers of Hatti, and that several monuments were positioned over the whole area during the time period of Tuthaliya IV.

  2. Belke and Restle had located Roman and Byzantine Hydē in Gölören on Karacadağ (1984, p. 174). However, our investigation in 2016 showed firstly that Gölören is a much smaller settlement than Karaören during antiquity, secondly, that the strategic location of Karaören is more important, thirdly that important monumental buildings such as churches have been standing here and finally, that Gıcan Kalesi was in close vicinity to Karaören and that they must have been operating together (Maner, 2017, pp. 107-110). Massimo Forlanini states that the identification of Hydē with UDA can be considered as certain (2017, p. 241), Jutta Börker-Klähn proposed that UDA should be located in Emirgazi (2007) and Ali Özcan at Maltepesi Höyük on the slope of Arısama Dağı – Kötü Dağ just north of Emirgazi (2007). If Gölören is Hydē, this would be also the location of UDA. However, the recent discovery of Karaören 2 and the presence of Karaören 1 indicate Hittite presence in Karaören. Maybe UDA (and also Hydē) is located in Karaören? Or was UDA the whole area covering Karaören, Gıcan Kalesi, Gölören, Emirgazi and the slope of Arısama Dağı? There is a major road leading between Karacadağ and Arısama Dağı from Tyana and Niğde to Aksaray, Karapınar and Konya. This road connects also with Karadağ and Karaman. Since the monuments of Emirgazi and probably also the ones in Karaören can be ascribed to Tuthaliya IV, this area and connected road networks were definitely under the control of Hatti.

  3. The forts – No. 83-Salma Tepesi, 84-Demirtepe, 85-Adaca Ağıl Karakol and 87-Oymalı Asar Kale – are all positioned on the eastern slope of Karacadağ and on natural hills and form an important network of forts. They are located along the road which led along the eastern slope of Karacadağ to Kutören, Emirgazi, Bor, Aksaray. During the Iron Age, the settlements increase and the protection of road networks must have been more important than ever, hence it is likely that this road along the slope (which was the only option, because the eastern and southern areas were wetlands), was protected with the additional forts.

  4. Alitepe Höyüğü is not far away from Meke Gölü, which is also known as Meke Tuzlası, a saline lake. Meke Tuzlası was used for salt extraction until the 1950’s. Recently I have argued that Alitepe Höyüğü could be one of the important sites, which was involved in salt trade and that it might be equated with the Hittite town of Šarmana, mentioned on the Bronze Tablet from Boğazköy – Hattusa (Maner, 2021).

    • 8 See reports in Anatolia Antiqua, volumes 24 – 26.

    The KEYAR survey especially on Karacadağ (2014-2020) revealed that building stones from ancient sites on Karacadağ have been used as building stones for village houses.8 There is no village on Karacadağ or in close vicinity to it, which did not benefit from the ancient well-cut building stones. Through oral history it was possible to determine that building stones were brought to provinces and villages such as Karapınar, Ereğli, Emirgazi, Hotamış, Konya, Bor and Niğde as well. I would like to call them travelling stones, and in my opinion when basalt monuments in the above-mentioned places are discovered, one needs to consider Karacadağ as a provenance. This is valid for all time periods.

28Although 2020 was going to be our last KEYAR survey season, the discovery of Karaören 2, which raises the question whether we can find more pieces of this monumental inscription, as well as the interrupted research on Dağören and several unanswered research questions will occupy us for a final season to this region in 2021. The aim of that season will be to conduct geophysical prospection in Zengen by the water pool, to investigate Dağören, and the other unknown sites on the high peaks of Karacadağ. We are planning to stay on Karacadağ, as it is not possible to hike up and down every day. In particular I hope that our research on Karacadağ will shed light on the unknown history and archaeology of Karacadağ, Karaören and their relation to Emirgazi.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Belke, K., & Restle, M. (1984). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4 Galatien und Lykaonien. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Berger, A. (1998). Viranşehir (Mokisos), eine byzantinische Stadt in Kapadokien. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 48, 349-429.

Berger, A. (2017). Mokisos – Eine Kappadokische Fluchtsiedlung des sechsten Jahrhunderts. In E. Rizos (Ed.), New cities in Late Antiquity: documents and archaeology. Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive, Vol 35 (pp. 177-188). Turnhout: Brepols.

Börker-Klähn. J. (2007). Die Schlacht um Tuuanuaa als „Atlante Storico“. In D. Groddek, & M. Zorman (Eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beitrage. Sivin Kosak zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 91-118). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Callander, T. (1906). V. Explorations in Lycaonia and Isauria, 1904. In W. M. Ramsay (Ed.), Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire, (pp. 157-180). Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

Forlanini, M. (2017). South Central: The Lower Land and Tarhuntašša. In M. Weeden & L. Ullmann (Eds.), Hittite Ladscape and Geography (pp. 238-252). Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Gündüz, İ. (1980). Bütün Yönleriyle Karapınar. Konya: Kurcular Ofset.

Maner, Ç. (2015). Preliminary report on the second season of the Konya-Ereğli Survey (KEYAR) 2014. Anatolia Antiqua, 23, 249-274. DOI: 10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.361.

Maner, Ç. (2017). From the Konya Plain to the Bolkar Mountains: The 2015-2016 Campaigns of the KEYAR Survey Project. In S. R. Steadman, & G. McMahon (Eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia Volume II: Recent Discoveries (2015-2016) (pp. 347-373). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. URL: https://www.academia.edu/35161363/_%C3%87_Maner_From_the_Konya_Plain_to_the_Bolkar_Mountains_in_The_Archaeology_of_Anatolia_Recent_Discoveries_2015_2016_Volume_II_S_R_Steadman_and_G_McMahon_eds_Newcastle_upon_Tyre_Cambridge_Scholars_Press.

Maner, Ç. (2019a). Inside Tarhuntašša: A Systematic Survey of Karapınar, Konya. The 2017-2018 Field Seasons of the KEYAR Survey Project. In S. R. Steadman & G. McMahon (Eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2017-2018) Volume III (pp. 347-373). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. URL: https://www.academia.edu/41536604/INSIDE_TAR%E1%B8%AAUNTA%C5%A0%C5%A0A_A_Systematic_Survey_of_Karap%C4%B1nar_Konya_The_2017_2018_Field_Seasons_of_the_KEYAR_Survey_Project_in_The_Archaeology_of_Anatolia_Recent_Discoveries_2017_2018_Volume_III_S_R_Steadman_and_G_McMahon_eds_Newcastle_upon_Tyre_Cambridge_Scholars_Press_2019_205_217.

Maner, Ç. (2019b). Networks, Crossroads and Interconnections in the Ereğli Plain during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In Ç. Maner (Ed.), Crossroads Konya Plain from Prehistory to the Byzantine Period. Kavşaklar Prehistorik Çağ’dan Bizans Dönemine Konya Ovası (pp. 83-106), Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. URL: https://www.academia.edu/38576067/Networks_Crossroads_and_Interconnections_in_the_Ere%C4%9Fli_Plain_During_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Ages_2019.

Maner, Ç. (2021). Eine bedeutende Salzquelle in Karapınar Konya – Meke Gölü (Meke Maar) und ein Gleichsetzungsvorschlag für liki „Salzlecke“ im Staatsvertrag des Kurunta und Tutḫalija IV. Altorientalische Forschungen, 48(2), 327-346. DOI: 10.1515/aofo-2021-0018.

Maner, Ç., Weeden, M., & Alparslan, M. (2021). Archäologische Forschungen auf dem Karacadağ und eine Hieroglyphenluwische Inschrift aus Karaören. Altorientalische Forschungen, 48(2), 347-383. DOI: 10.1515/aofo-2021-0019.

Masson, E. (1979). Les Inscriptions Louvites Hiéroglyphiques d’Emirgazi. Journal des Savants, 1, 3-52. DOI: 10.3406/jds.1979.1382.

Mellaart, J. (1963). Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain. Anatolian Studies, 13, 199-236. DOI: 10.2307/3642494.

Özcan, A. (2007). Uda Şehrinin Yeri Hakkında. Zur Lage von UDA. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, XXXII(53), 192-212. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/781230.

Ramsay, W. M., & Bell, G. L. (1908). The Thousand and One Churches. London: Hodder.

Tezcan, N. (2011). Şairler ve Şiirlerle Karaören. Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For previous field season reports see Anatolia Antiqua XXII-XXVIII and Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (AST 32-37). Furthermore Maner 2017, 2019a, b.

2 Ovacık Krater Yerleşimi (No. 90) has not been surveyed again, only a site number has been issued, as this was missing from our previous investigations.

3 https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-162927/konya-ili-emirgazi-ilcesi-karaoren-koyunden-kaybolan-lu-.html

4 A detailed article on Karacadağ, its research history and the decipherment of Karaören 1 is forthcoming (Maner, Weeden & Alparslan, forthcoming).

5 A detailed publication on Karaören 2 is in preparation.

6 Diary entry: http://gertrudebell.ncl.ac.uk/diary_details.php?diary_id=614

7 Özcan proposes that UDA is located at Maltepesi Höyük (Özcan, 2007).

8 See reports in Anatolia Antiqua, volumes 24 – 26.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 A spolia: Karaören 2
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 257k
Titre Fig. 2 Map showing systematically surveyed sites during the 2020 field season
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 451k
Titre Fig. 3 Karaören 1; missing since 2015. Searched for by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey and Interpol
Crédits N. Tezcan
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 186k
Titre Fig. 4 Karaören, a village on Karacadağ built with spolia from the adjacent Late Antique ruins
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 340k
Titre Fig. 5 The house owner Fahri Kaymak in front of his house, where Karaören 1 and Karaören 2 have been discovered
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 478k
Titre Fig. 6 Karaören 2 used as a door jamb
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 217k
Titre Fig. 7 Gıcan Kalesi (drone image)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 39k
Titre Fig. 8 Western fortification wall of Gıcan Kalesi
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 405k
Titre Fig. 9 Pottery from Gıcan Kalesi
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Titre Fig. 10 Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi, rock massif with wall to the right
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 527k
Titre Fig. 11 Rocks with marks (Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 424k
Titre Fig. 12 Middle Iron Age sherd from Eski Belkaya Yerleşimi
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 24k
Titre Fig. 13 Google Earth screenshot showing Salma Tepesi and Oymalı Asar Kale
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 9,3k
Titre Fig. 14 Adaca Ağıl Karakol (drone image)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 733k
Titre Fig. 15 Dağören (drone image)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,8M
Titre Fig. 16 Remains of a church in Dağören
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 516k
Titre Fig. 17 Roman or Early Byzantine (?) grave at Dağören
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 311k
Titre Fig. 18 Rectangular slab with crosses and grapes
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 465k
Titre Fig. 19 Fortification wall (?) of Dağören
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 392k
Titre Fig. 20 Rakka Höyük
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 111k
Titre Fig. 21 LBA and Iron Age pottery from Rakka Höyük
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 34k
Titre Fig. 22 Yeşiltepe Höyük
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 101k
Titre Fig. 23 Pottery from Yeşiltepe Höyük
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 54k
Titre Fig. 24 Alitepe Höyüğü (drone image)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1929/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 258k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Çiğdem Maner, « Preliminary Report on the Eight Season of the Konya Ereğli, Karapınar, Halkapınar and Emirgazi Survey Project (KEYAR) 2020 »Anatolia Antiqua, XXIX | 2021, 109-127.

Référence électronique

Çiğdem Maner, « Preliminary Report on the Eight Season of the Konya Ereğli, Karapınar, Halkapınar and Emirgazi Survey Project (KEYAR) 2020 »Anatolia Antiqua [En ligne], XXIX | 2021, mis en ligne le 15 mars 2022, consulté le 18 juin 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/1929 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.1929

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search