• 1 The toponym Phoinikoudi, meaning “Place of Date Palms,” is etymologically a successor of Phoinix/Ph (...)
• 2 Research indicates that Phoenix developed as a semi-autonomous community under political, economic, (...)
• 3 It has been suggested that during this period the principal city administering Phoenix was Camirus, (...)
• 4 For the results of the first systematic investigations, including surveys and salvage excavations c (...)
• 5 For the theory of entanglement in archaeology, see Hodder, 2012.

1Phoenix/Phoinix (Φοῖνιξ)¹ is located today within the boundaries of Taşlıca in the district of Marmaris, Muğla Province, on the southwestern edge of the Bozburun Peninsula. From the Archaic period, the settlement played an important political, economic, and religious role within the Carian Chersonese,² and from the Hellenistic period onwards, it became part of the Rhodian Peraea.³ Since 2021, systematic and intensive surveys have been carried out in the rural districts of Taşlıca and Söğüt.⁴ These surveys and salvage excavations at the Apollo sanctuary aim to contribute to the archaeology of the peninsula, address key research questions, and support the protection of cultural heritage. The project represents a multi-layered study of the cultural landscape, approached through the theoretical framework of archaeological entanglement.⁵

• 6 We would like to express our gratitude to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Directorate (...)
• 7 The flora studies are being conducted by landscape architect Kübra Günbey.
• 8 The Taşlıca Rural Architecture Research and Documentation Programme is led by Lecturer M. Rumeysa Ç (...)
• 9 The 2024 Contemporary Art Programme was carried out by Doctoral Researcher Aslıhan Güçlü and Dr. Ay (...)
• 10 The epigraphic research is conducted by Assoc. Prof. Koray Konuk and Dr. Anna Marie Sitz.
• 11 As part of the digital documentation programme, georeferenced orthophotos at resolutions of 30 cm/p (...)

2In its fourth season, the intensive and multidisciplinary survey at Phoenix focused on the rural areas near Taşlıca village (Fig. 1). Fieldwork covered a total of 600 hectares (3 x 2 km) along the Dağ Yeri–Bedelence–Tülü Tepe line, encompassing an east-west oriented depression plain and its surrounding slopes.⁶ The investigations were supported by various sub-programmes, including archaeological documentation, geomorphological studies, flora and fauna research⁷, oral history interviews, documentation of rural architecture,⁸ a contemporary art programme,⁹ and epigraphic recording.¹⁰ The resulting data were cross-analysed and evaluated holistically within their contextual framework.¹¹

• 12 For further references on the findings at Gökçalca, see Oğuz, 2013, 271, 280, 333-334, 497-498, Pl. (...)

3The first stage of the 2024 archaeological survey was carried out at Gökçalca. Situated on an east-facing slope to the southwest of Somakkaya Hill, southeast of the village of Taşlıca, and west of Akalan, Gökçalca is an extensive settlement consisting of rectangular-plan structures (Fig. 2-3).¹²

• 13 For the typology of polygonal walls, see Scranton, 1941, 45-98.

4Through intensive surface survey, at least 53 structures were identified along the slope, extending from the lower levels in the south to the higher terraces in the north. These single- and multi-room units were constructed using dry-stone techniques, most with polygonal walls built from local limestone, with some stones worked and others left rough.¹³ The architectural organisation demonstrates a deliberate use of terracing on the slope together with the systematic use of corridor-type entrances.

• 14 A comparable example is the settlement at Avşar Tepesi in Lycia, and the proposed interpretation of (...)

7Based on its dimensions and location, this tomb is believed to have belonged to an individual of elevated status within the community. In general, Gökçalca presents a multi-functional rural settlement, combining domestic architecture with defensive and agricultural infrastructure. Its planned terracing system, shared-wall building complexes, corridor-type entrances, and strategically placed communal structures provide important evidence for understanding social organisation and spatial planning in the region. No datable material from the Hellenistic or Roman Imperial periods was recovered at Gökçalca or in its surroundings. However, decorated terracotta fragments and pear-shaped press stones associated with olive oil production were documented. Taken together, these finds indicate that Gökçalca functioned as a hillside settlement whose final occupation phase can be assigned to the Archaic period, specifically the 6th century BCE.¹⁴

• 15 Epigraphic evidence also confirms the presence of sanctuaries dedicated to Zeus Polieus, Athena, Ap (...)

8Somakkaya Hill lies to the east of Taşlıca village and Gökçalca, occupying a strategic position surrounded by rocky slopes with further evidence of occupation extending from Gökçalca. Access to the hill is difficult from the east, west, and north due to steep inclines, while the southern slope offers relatively easier entry. Archaeological investigations have revealed a concentration of architectural blocks and building foundations along the southern line, beginning from the lower levels. Extending from the base towards the summit, this southern axis yielded a cultic arrangement consisting of an east-west-oriented terrace, two structures on the upper levels of the terrace, and, at the summit, a stepped altar accompanied by a rock-cut basin.¹⁵ Within this arrangement, the areas designated as the Terrace and Structure 1 are situated on the lower section of the southern slope, Structure 2 lies at the mid-levels, and the altar, together with the rock basin, occupies the summit (Figs. 5-6).

• 16 εὐθυντήρια is a term used in temple and monumental architecture to denote the uppermost course of t (...)
• 17 ἀναθύρωσις is a term used to describe the special preparation of the joint surface between two ston (...)

9The terrace, situated to the southeast of Structure 1, is a 7 x 2 m platform built on bedrock with roughly worked blocks. Technical similarities in the masonry indicate that the terrace was contemporaneous with Structures 1 and 2. Structure 1, measuring 13 x 4.5 m, is a large building. The lower parts of its north and west walls are cut directly from bedrock, while the upper courses consist of polygonal and rectangular blocks. Particularly notable are the profiled blocks preserved in situ in the south wall: their lower sections are roughly worked, while their upper surfaces are smoothly finished. These elements resemble euthynteria¹⁶ blocks and display anathyrosis¹⁷ cuttings, indicating that a second course of blocks once rested upon them. The topography, block arrangement, and passage openings suggest that the structure had a main entrance on the southwest and a secondary passage connecting to Structure 2 on the north. Its location and architectural configuration suggest that it may have served as a reception space for ritual processions.

• 18 Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 22.
• 19 Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 173.
• 20 Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 15-17.
• 21 For libation basins, see Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 145, 149, 181, 183–184, 190. For other examples in Ana (...)

12The stepped altar, carved into a rock mass measuring 4.35 x 3.75 m, consists of three steps topped by a basin. The steps and basin form an integrated whole. In the literature, a wide range of terms has been applied to such monuments, including altar, stepped altar, rock throne, throne altar, and idol altar.¹⁸ The steps vary in depth from 25 to 53 cm and are 12 cm high, dimensions that indicate they were not intended for functional use. In this respect, the altar closely parallels examples at Midas City and Fındık in Phrygia.¹⁹ Its eastward orientation, consistent with Phrygian tradition, can be associated with the rising sun.²⁰ Above the steps, on the upper surface of the altar, is an offering basin of irregular shape, somewhere between elliptical and rectangular. Measuring 60 x 40 cm and preserved to a depth of 6 cm, the basin was most likely used for libation offerings.²¹

• 22 For rock-cut basins and examples with different functions, see Kızıl, 2015, 276; Kızıl and Doğan, 2 (...)

13The second rock-cut basin, located northwest of the altar, was hewn into a rock mass measuring 3.27 x 1.96 m. Its form resembles an urn, and the presence of a lid-setting surface along the rim suggests it was originally covered. This basin was probably not used for libation but may have served as a storage feature associated with cult practice, or as an osteothek.²²

• 23 For comparable examples, see Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 60, 144, 183.

14Rock-cut cavities observed within the area and along the floor surface can, in some cases, be associated with the construction techniques of the floor level, while in other instances they appear to have functioned as sockets for the installation of shelves or platforms.²³ Such cuttings may plausibly be interpreted as housing wooden shelving systems intended for the placement of votive offerings or other cultic equipment.

• 24 Berndt-Ersöz, 2006, 41-48. See also Held, 2010, 375-377.

15In light of this evidence, the Somakkaya cult area, with its east–west oriented steps, libation basins, and elevated location, can be closely compared to the open-air sanctuaries dedicated to Cybele in Phrygia and to cultic sites associated with Cybele at nearby Loryma, particularly a stepped altar.²⁴ The cult of Cybele is known to have been practised not only in Central Anatolia during the Early Iron Age but also throughout the Roman Imperial and Late Antique periods.

• 25 Architectural investigations of sanctuaries and cultic spaces at Phoenix, Casara, and Thysannous ar (...)

16The Somakkaya sanctuary, situated on a high and commanding hilltop with an eastward orientation and difficult accessibility, represents a local adaptation of this broader tradition, both architecturally and topographically. Although the masonry techniques and ritual installations do not provide an absolute chronology, comparative material suggests a date between the 6^th and 2^nd centuries BCE. However, the absence of material datable later than the late 6^th century BCE establishes a terminus ante quem. When considered contextually and holistically alongside the evidence from Gökçalca and the lower settlement at Kaledağ, this absence supports the possibility that the site fell out of use after the Archaic period.²⁵

• 26 Scholarly debate has proposed that Kaledağ may be identified with the deme of Tlos in the Rhodian P (...)
• 27 For further observations, comparative analysis, and dating proposals regarding the fortification wa (...)

17Kaledağ is located on a commanding hilltop at an elevation of 451 m, east of Taşlıca. Archaeological investigations have revealed a fortified settlement covering approximately five hectares, consisting of a two-tiered defensive system.²⁶ The site includes an acropolis enclosed by fortification walls and a lower settlement area, also protected by surrounding walls, situated on the terraces below the acropolis. The fortification circuit, particularly well preserved on the western, northern, and southern sides, is reinforced with large polygonal blocks, suggesting that the acropolis served as both a defensive stronghold and an administrative centre (Fig. 7-8).²⁷

• 28 For the definition of the term Acropolis, see Nossov, 2009, 12. Kaledağ differs from the isolated p (...)
• 29 The site has also been interpreted as a phrourion-type military garrison, a fortified outpost servi (...)

18The designation of the fortified summit at Kaledağ as an acropolis requires brief clarification.²⁸ In its earliest phases, the upper settlement clearly served as more than a defensive outpost: alongside fortification walls, the presence of civic and possibly sacred spaces – later perhaps overbuilt by a basilica – as well as a large public cistern supplying the community, supports the use of the term acropolis in its original sense of a fortified upper town with administrative, religious, and communal significance. Moreover, the possible association with the Tlos deme further reinforces Kaledağ’s candidacy as an acropolis, as deme-level ties suggest a recognised civic identity within the Rhodian Peraea. Especially in the Archaic and Classical periods, the fortified acropolis should be understood as functioning within an integrated settlement system together with the inhabited areas and sanctuaries at Gökçalca and Somakkaya, rather than as a stand-alone fortress. Nevertheless, it must be noted that in the Carian Chersonese, including Phoenix and its neighbouring communities, urbanism remained small-scale, and the so-called acropoleis were correspondingly limited in size. For this reason, some scholars have preferred the term phrourion to emphasise their character as fortified strongholds, particularly in the later Roman and Byzantine phases when military functions predominated. In this context, it is plausible that Kaledağ’s acropolis, while originally serving civic and religious purposes, was gradually redefined in later periods as what might more appropriately be described as a phrourion, a fortress whose primary role was defensive and strategic.²⁹

• 30 For additional observations regarding the gate structure, see Nöth, 2023, 110. For the gates also s (...)
• 31 The term megaroid is a modern descriptive label for a rectangular, hall-like building whose ground (...)

20The main entrance gate of the acropolis was identified on the north-western side (Fig. 9).³⁰ Constructed with isodomic masonry and measuring 1.00 m in width, the gate is flanked on its eastern side by square-plan rooms introduced for security purposes. Inside the acropolis, walls of polygonal dry-stone construction were documented and are probably associated with a megaroid structure of rectangular plan, as well as with administrative or military units.³¹ Ceramic evidence indicates that the acropolis became a phrourion and remained in continuous use during the Hellenistic, Roman imperial, and Byzantine periods.

• 32 Expert archaeologist İlayda Alikaya is currently preparing a study on the stepped-bases found in th (...)

21At the highest point of the acropolis, a three-aisled basilica was identified on the northern side. The main entrance of the structure is located on the west and measures 1.00 m in width. The eastern jamb of the doorway incorporates spolia, specifically a block from a stepped base.³² To the east, the apse measures 4.10 x 1.60 m. The use of mortar in the walls suggests the interior was plastered, while the numerous roof tiles observed in the foundations provide evidence for a tiled superstructure. Near the apse, a circular installation measuring 62 x 40 cm, coated with mortar, has been interpreted as a cistern. Similarly, on the southern side, a second installation measuring 160 x 125 cm with thick plaster was also identified.

• 33 M. Nöth defines the lower settlement of Kaledağ, which covers an enclosed area of approximately 5 h (...)

23Approximately 100 m below the acropolis of Kaledağ, a lower settlement enclosed by fortification walls has been identified. Documentation reveals that the fortification extends for c. 170 m on the west and c. 200 m on the east. The internal layout of the settlement was arranged on a terraced landscape oriented along an east-west axis. The terrace walls were constructed of local limestone, using a dry-stone technique with large, polygonal blocks.³³

• 34 Comparable Early Iron Age examples in Caria have been documented at Kızılağaç-Kabakulak Tepesi and (...)

25The discovery of three pear-shaped press stones indicates the presence of olive oil workshops located near the agricultural terrace areas within the fortified lower settlement (Fig. 11).³⁴ In the western sector of the settlement, a circular water reservoir measuring 13 x 11 m was identified. This feature confirms that water for both agricultural production and daily consumption was supplied from a communal source.

• 35 Nöth, 2023, 110.

27Chronologically, M. Nöth has dated the fortification walls of the lower settlement to the Archaic period at the latest, based on their rough polygonal masonry and broad joints.³⁵ The available evidence suggests that the Kaledağ lower settlement was in use from the Early Iron Age through the Archaic and Classical periods. Subsequently, the settlement’s focal point appears to have shifted, likely for reasons of security and strategic relocation, to the Hisar Tepe Acropolis and its surroundings in the Sindili plain.

• 36 For previous studies on the farmsteads in the Bozburun Peninsula, see Demirciler, 2014.
• 37 In the region, more than seventy rock-cut cisterns reflect the water management system established (...)

28To the west of Taşlıca village, in the locality of Dağ Yeri, field surveys conducted on a narrow northeast–southwest–oriented plateau and its surroundings identified a total of eleven farmsteads and olive oil workshops, most of them situated along the western slopes. One of the best-preserved examples of these complexes is at Bedelence (Fig. 12-14).³⁶ Within the farmstead and olive oil workshop complex, which measures 30.58 x 32.90 m, a well-preserved installation consisting of two in situ press stones and a liquid-collecting basin was documented. Immediately outside the complex, a total of three rock-cut cisterns, each reaching depths of up to 20 m, were recorded.³⁷

• 38 For farmsteads, olive oil presses, and wine production facilities identified between 2021 and 2023, (...)

29These installations closely resemble the examples documented between 2021 and 2023 in the southern hinterland of Phoenix and at Casara.³⁸ Their commanding positions in the landscape and immediate proximity to ancient pathways suggest that these farmsteads operated within a decentralized agricultural organisation. The products cultivated and processed here were transported along the east-west oriented paths within the Phoenix territory and exported to Serçe Liman, Gedik, Yeşilgelme and Arap Ada Bay, as well as to Rhodes and other regional centres.

• 39 For stepped pyramidal tombs, see Carter, 1982, 176-195; Held, 2014, 250-267. For examples identifie (...)

31As of 2024, a total of sixteen farmstead and press complexes have been documented in the eastern and northern chora, including the Dağ Yeri area. As with examples previously recorded in the territories of Phoenix and Casara, terrace tombs and stepped pyramidal grave markers, likely belonging to the farm owners or their families, were also identified near these complexes and along the adjacent ancient pathways.³⁹

• 40 Comparable examples of Late Roman, red-slipped wares have been published by Hayes, 1972; 2008.

32Ceramological evidence indicates that, as with the material recovered between 2021 and 2023, these complexes began production in the early 4^th century BCE and remained in intensive use throughout the Hellenistic period until the 1^st century BCE. The variety and density of mushroom-type amphorae provide particularly compelling ceramic evidence supporting this chronology. The finds also reveal, as in other settlements across the peninsula, that production declined sharply during the Roman Imperial period, likely due to ecological, economic, or political factors that remain insufficiently understood. In contrast, the decentralized farmstead organisation appears to have partially resumed activity in the first half of the 5^th century CE and continued into the mid-7^th century. The density of Late Roman C (LRC) Hayes Form 3 and Late Roman D (LRD) Hayes Form 9 wares, together with African Red Slip (ARS) Hayes Form 67, and LR1 and LR4 amphorae, substantiates this chronological framework.⁴⁰ Notably, many of the identified farmsteads are still reused today by the inhabitants of Taşlıca village as animal pens, although for a different purpose.

• 41 The apse of the first phase measures 3.50 × 1.50 m, with a window opening in its wall at a height o (...)

37Particularly important for reconstructing the region’s ecclesiastical landscape was the investigation of the Tülü Tepe Church in 2024. Fieldwork on the eastern slope of Tülü Tepe, in the eastern hinterland of Phoenix, documented a three-aisled basilical church situated immediately west of an ancient north–south oriented road (Fig. 15-16). In its initial phase, the structure measured 12.70 x 11.20 m, with an apse at the eastern end. Although the basilical plan is consistent with Late Antique churches in the region such as the Kızlan Deresi basilica, the masonry type at Tülü Tepe consists of smaller stones, brick fragments, and abundant mortar, features associated with later constructions. In a subsequent phase, a small chapel was added in the central nave of the first church.⁴¹ The evidence indicates two building phases, potentially dating to the Transitional Phase (7^th-9^th centuries) and to the Middle Byzantine period (9^th-13^th centuries). Architectural analysis further shows that the masonry blocks used in the church walls were spolia, reused from a nearby Hellenistic farmstead to the north.

• 42 On the Kızlan Church, see Yaman and Konuk et al., 2022, 192-195; for the Aşağı Fenaket Church, see (...)
• 43 Excavations conducted in 2022 at the Apollo and Ilithyia Sanctuary/Kızlan Church revealed evidence (...)

38Between 2021 and 2023, a systematic survey at Gökseriç and its environs documented the Kızlan Church, Aşağı Fenaket Church, Bahçekise Chapel, Hisardibi Church, Kaynarlık Tepe Chapel, and a series of basilical churches and chapels near Serçe Liman. Taken together, these structures indicate that the establishment of a rural ecclesiastical network in the region began in the first half of the 5^th century CE.⁴² The evidence also suggests a disruption in this activity by the mid-7^th century, plausibly linked to the Arab incursions, during which several churches appear to have been abandoned.⁴³ However, buildings in more inaccessible locations remained in use throughout the Middle Byzantine period. The basilical church identified on the eastern slope of Tülü Tepe, which may have been constructed in this remote inland area during or after the 7^th century, extends this architectural horizon and constitutes an additional node within the local ecclesiastical landscape. Datable material recovered from adjacent farmsteads and production complexes supports this interpretation, indicating that the decentralized, production-oriented rural settlement of Phoenix persisted into the medieval period, in part articulated through and sustained by ecclesiastical infrastructure.

• 44 Notitiae episcopatuum 4, 10; Fedalto, 1988.
• 45 Fedalto 1988.

39Although the basilical church at Tülütepe demonstrates the spread of ecclesiastical architecture into the rural hinterland of Phoenix, research confirms that no bishopric was established on the Bozburun Peninsula in Late Antiquity or the Byzantine period.⁴⁴ Instead, the churches here, including Tülütepe, were most likely under the authority of the bishop of Cnidus, metropolitan of Aphrodisias.⁴⁵ This absence of an independent bishopric reflects the rural, non-urban character of Phoenix and its hinterland, where ecclesiastical identity was expressed through dispersed farmstead-based churches rather than urban centres.

• 46 See Yaman and Konuk et al., 2023, 286–288. Also see Özberk, 2004.

45Architecturally, perspective, the domestic structures at Büğüş show clear parallels with the houses of Aşağı and Yukarı Fenaket documented during the 2022 and 2023 seasons, particularly in plan typology, use of local stone, timber beams, and tiled roofs.⁴⁶ The data strongly suggest that Büğüş was abandoned following the 1923 population exchange. Thus, the site provides valuable insights into settlement continuity, demographic mobility, and the transformation of the cultural landscape in rural Phoenix. It also illustrates the impact of socio-economic changes during the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic on patterns of habitation.

• 47 A photograph taken in front of the windmill during George E. Bean’s visit to Fenaket (B19.6) docume (...)

46In addition to the villages of Fenaket and Büğüş, two well-preserved windmills were identified, one at Yokuşbaşı locality and another within Taşlıca village. Archival evidence indicates that these windmills remained standing until the 1950s.⁴⁷ They are tangible examples of a production-based cultural landscape that persisted into the modern era.

• 48 Gätringen, 1902, 143-146.
• 49 Blümel, 1991, no. 102.

48While a city named Tlos is well known in Lycia, the Rhodian inscriptions clearly refer to a different entity, plausibly a deme located either within Camirian territory on Rhodes, on one of the incorporated islands, or on the mainland Peraea. F. Hiller von Gärtringen, following van Gelder, was the first to propose that Phoenix should be identified with the deme Tlos.⁴⁸ His reasoning focused on onomastic overlaps between the donor list carved into the bedrock on the Phoenix acropolis, the fragmentary donor list from Syme⁴⁹ and the list of priests from the Yazıtlı Ev at Fenaket. The key piece of evidence comes from Blümel no. 102, where most names are recorded without demotika, except for one individual designated as a Kasareus. Von Gärtringen argued that this suggests the other individuals all belonged to a single deme, most plausibly Tlos.

• 50 Blümel, 1991, no. 102, ln. 31: Χαρμοκλῆς Ἐρατ[οκλεῦ]ς.
• 51 Held, 2003, 55–86, no. 3. W. Held has instead proposed that Loryma and Casara were both associated (...)

49His case is strengthened by the name “Charmokles, son of Eratokleus”⁵⁰ which also appears on a Rhodian grave stele where the demotikon Τλῶιος (Tloios) is explicitly given. Although the possibility of homonymy exists, the relative rarity of the name makes the identification persuasive. By extension, if Charmokles was a Tloios, then the Syme donor list, and by implication the Phoenix acropolis list, may also reflect citizens of the deme Tlos. A further comparative case is instructive. Only one inscription from the Bozburun peninsula explicitly mentions Tlos or the Tloioi: at Loryma, a dedication to Artemis was made by Hagetor, son of Hagesianax, identified as a Tloios.⁵¹ This inscription does not imply that Loryma itself was Tlos, but rather illustrates how individuals frequently used their demotikon when away from their home territory. The Loryma evidence therefore reinforces both the plausibility of locating the deme of Tlos in the Peraea and the methodological caution needed when linking demotika to specific sites.

• 52 Oreshko, 2020, 13-40.

50R. Oreshko, however, criticised this identification as “arbitrary,” instead suggesting that Tlos should be located in northern Rhodes and associated with Lycian linguistic influence.⁵² Yet his argument does not substantially engage with von Gärtringen’s epigraphic evidence.

• 53 Blümel, 1991, no 103, dated to the mid-3^rd century BCE.
• 54 Badoud, 2015.

51Further support for the Phoenix = Tlos hypothesis comes from comparisons between the Fenaket priest list⁵³ and an inscription from Camirus (Tit. Cam. 157). In both, a Teisagoras son of Aristombrotos appears, identified at Camirus as a Tloios. Although N. Badoud dates the Camiran inscription to ca. 125 BCE,⁵⁴ which is too late for the same individual, the recurrence of the name may indicate a family continuity linking Phoenix with the deme of Tlos.

• 55 Held, 2009, 126, fn. 15.

53The 2024 survey in and around Gökçalca adds significant archaeological context to the epigraphic debate.⁵⁵ The architectural features of this pre-Hellenistic settlement resemble those found in Anatolia.

• 56 The status of Syme in the Rhodian state is unclear; it is not certain whether it was part of a deme (...)

54Several issues remain unresolved. The provenance of Blümel no. 102, found on Syme, must be reconsidered: if the plaque originated at Phoenix, the case for Phoenix = Tlos is considerably strengthened, but even if it did not, the evidence suggests that both Syme and Phoenix may have belonged to the deme.⁵⁶ Furthermore, the precise organisation of Rhodian demes remains poorly understood. It is unclear whether demes exercised local autonomy or functioned primarily as voting units tied to Camirus. The honorific base at Phoenix for a prytanis named Rhodippos raises the question of whether such officials acted locally within the deme or at Rhodes proper.

• 57 Blümel, 1991, 33, no. 103.

55Finally, the evidence for cult practice requires careful reassessment. The priest list from Fenaket⁵⁷ includes deities such as Athena Polias, Zeus Polieus, Aphrodite, Asklapios, and Sarapis, all of whom are also attested at Camirus. These may therefore reflect Camiran cult activity rather than local Phoenix worship.

• 58 Ficus carica.

57The 2024 field season of the Phoenix Archaeological Project featured a comprehensive of flora study programme that integrated botanical and ethnobotanical perspectives. In this context, landscape is understood as a holistic entity formed by the interweaving of natural and cultural elements, each shaped by environmental conditions and human interaction. Vegetation was used as a primary reference point for understanding ancient landscapes and human–environment relationships. Field research was carried out in seven distinct zones, combining systematic vegetation surveys, intensive fig variety research across Taşlıca village, and oral history interviews with local residents. In total, 59 species were documented, including 26 fig varieties⁵⁸ and 13 species identified for the first time in 2024.

• 59 Davis, 1965; 1966; 1970; 1972; 1975; 1978; 1982; 1985; 1988; Davis et al., 1988.

58Taxonomic classification was based on the Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, which served as the principal reference for morphological identification.⁵⁹ Plants were examined by their root, stem, leaf, and floral structures to determine family, genus, and species-level taxonomy. Field identifications included Cressa truxillensis, Papaver purpureomarginatum, Arum dioscoridis, Rosularia serrata, and Origanum onites, as well as widespread Mediterranean taxa such as Asplenium ceterach. All findings were georeferenced and integrated into GIS-based mapping to document vegetation density, species distribution, and areas of ecological vulnerability. These maps revealed patches of kermes oak Quercus coccifera, wild pear Pyrus amygdaliformis, hawthorn Crataegus orientalis, and long-lived olive trees Olea europaea, some with trunk diameters indicating ages between 500 and 700 years.

• 60 Grace, 1979; Finkielsztejn, 2001.

65The stamped amphora handles discovered during the 2024 season at Phoenix provide valuable epigraphic and chronological data for reconstructing patterns of trade and regional connectivity in the Rhodian Peraea. A total of thirty-two handles bearing stamps were documented, many of which are fragmentary but still legible. Most belong to the well-attested Rhodian series, characterised by the presence of eponym and fabricant names, often accompanied by a symbol. The occurrence of such stamps at Phoenix is consistent with the broader corpus of Rhodian amphorae known from the eastern Mediterranean, where they are frequently used as chronological markers due to their well-established typology and association with annual eponym lists. Within the Phoenix assemblage, several stamps preserve names that can be identified with eponyms documented in the existing chronological frameworks, such as those published in the standard corpora⁶⁰.

• 61 See Spratt, 1865; Bent, 1888, 234-246; Fraser and Bean, 1954.

68Taken as a whole, the amphora stamps from Phoenix enrich the corpus of Rhodian epigraphy from the Carian Chersonese, complementing earlier finds.⁶¹ They confirm that Phoenix participated fully in the Rhodian system of amphora stamping, which functioned both as a chronological device and as a mechanism of civic and economic identity. The inscriptions, although fragmentary, provide rare written evidence from the site and help refine the historical and archaeological narrative of Rhodian Peraean integration during the Hellenistic period (Fig. 21-22).

• 62 For more information on the geomorphology and archaeoseismology of Phoenix and Taşlıca, see Anlıak, (...)

74Taken together, the geomorphological evidence highlights the interplay between natural processes and cultural adaptations in the Phoenix landscape. The karstic substratum presented both challenges and opportunities, encouraging the development of sophisticated systems of terracing, water management, and settlement planning. These observations underscore the necessity of integrating geomorphological analysis into broader archaeological interpretations, as landscape formation and human agency are inextricably linked in the long-term history of Phoenix.⁶²