# Preliminary Report on the 2021 Fieldwork at Phoenix

Asil Yaman, Koray Konuk, Öğr. Üyesi Taylan Doğan, Anna Sitz, Merve Yeşil, İlayda Alikaya, Dilara Taki, Aslıhan Güçlü, Aslı Dinç, Zeynep Okyay, Ayşe Öz兹دın, Tuba Konuk and Mehmet Serhat Aydemir

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/2450

DOI: 10.4000/12dcx

ISSN: 2823-1090

**Publisher**

IFEA - Institut français d'études anatoliennes

**Printed version**

Date of publication: December 1, 2022

Number of pages: 187-203

ISBN: 978-2-36245-087-7

ISSN: 1018-1946

**Electronic reference**

Asil Yaman, Koray Konuk, Öğr. Üyesi Taylan Doğan, Anna Sitz, Merve Yeşil, İlayda Alikaya, Dilara Taki, Aslıhan Güçlü, Aslı Dinç, Zeynep Okyay, Ayşe Öz兹دın, Tuba Konuk and Mehmet Serhat Aydemir, "Preliminary Report on the 2021 Fieldwork at Phoenix", *Anatolia Antiqua* [Online], XXX | 2022, Online since 15 March 2024, connection on 10 October 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ anatoliaantiqua/2450; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/12dcx

This text was automatically generated on October 10, 2024.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Preliminary Report on the 2021 Fieldwork at Phoenix

Asil Yaman, Koray Konuk, Öğr. Üyesi Taylan Doğan, Anna Sitz, Merve Yeşil, İlayda Alikaya, Dilara Taki, Aslıhan Güçlü, Aslı Dinç, Zeynep Okyay, Ayşe Özaydın, Tuba Konuk and Mehmet Serhat Aydemir

## AUTHOR'S NOTE

This research benefited from the scientific framework of the University of Bordeaux's IdEx "Investments for the Future" program / GPR "Human Past".

## Introduction

1. Phoenix/Phoinix (Φοΐνιξ) is an ancient Greek *deme* located near the modern village of Taşlıca, district of Marmaris. The settlement is located in the southwest part of the Bozburun Peninsula (SW Turkey) which is also known as the Carian Chersonese, a political sub-region of ancient Caria, or the Rhodian Peraia, especially in the Hellenistic period (Held, 2005, pp. 86-88, 96, fig. 2; Cahn, 1970, p. 200; Meiggs, 1972, p. 556, Nr. 6).

2. The first systematic and intensive archaeological explorations of Phoenix were initiated in 2021 by a multidisciplinary team whose work was conducted under the *aegis* of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey, General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums.¹

3. The research area comprises the Söğüt and Taşlıca villages and includes not only the ancient site of Phoenix but also extends to the neighbouring towns of Thysannous in the north and Kasara towards the south (Fig. 1). Today, the areas covered by Taşlıca and Söğüt villages are both vulnerable to illicit excavations and looting of artefacts. The cultural and natural heritage in the southwestern part of the peninsula is heavily threatened by urban and agricultural expansion, changing the landscape visually and endangering the biodiversity. We truly believe that our multidisciplinary and new
generation holistic approaches will advance awareness, education, preservation, and
promote the documentation of archaeological remains and cultural heritage in Phoenix
and its environs.

4. Facing these challenges with a great sense of responsibility, the first year of the fieldwork mainly focused on intensive surveys and documentation of the core of the settlement in the Sindili plain where Phoenix stands. Research has been carried out in Hisar Tepe, which consists of the fortified acropolis of the site, the Apollo sanctuary (Kızlan church), and the necropoleis of Burgaz Tepe and Tülü Tepe.

The scope of the Phoenix Archaeological Project (PAP)

5. PAP is designed as a problem-oriented, interdisciplinary, and multinational cooperative survey project. It aims to identify and document the tangible and intangible cultural heritage and re-image the settlement pattern and land use from antiquity through the modern period at Phoenix. For these purposes, PAP is developing long-range multi-disciplinary sub-projects, holistic and collaborative approaches with various disciplines. Furthermore, PAP focuses on not only the scientific problems and documentation of the archaeological remains but also seeks to foster social responsibility and educational programs in the peninsula with the partnership of non-profit organisations to help build a sustainable future in the region.

6. Moreover, the contemporary art program consists of the other public program named 'Upper City', which encourages people to take a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to artmaking and research-led creative practice. Our primary goal in this project is to bring the artist and the archaeologist together and allow them both independently and collaboratively to reflect on the meanings of the archaeological material and visual culture, arts, and heritage in various ways. Psychogeographic tours that the artists aim to conduct will provide hints to visualize the past and observe the transformation or metamorphosis of ancient Phoenix and its long history. We truly believe that the link between contemporary art practice and archaeological study will turn over a new leaf in the 21st century.²

A brief history and geographical setting of the site

7 Strabo is the first ancient writer to mention Phoenix. He noted a mountain named Phoenix that he considered the highest one in the region – which, in actual fact, it is not – and pointed out a settlement with the same name nearby (Str. Geogr. XIV.2.4. 651C, 652C-4). Ptolemy, who lived in the 2nd century CE, is another ancient geographer who mentioned Phoenix which he described as a *kome* (Ptol., Geogr. V, 2. 11). The latest literary source is Stephanus of Byzantium in the 6th century CE (Steph. Byz., A.140.15), if he indeed referred to the Carian Phoenix in his *Ethnica* as πόλις Φοινίκης κατὰ Ἀόδον, it may be evidence of a settlement activity in the early Byzantine period.

8 In light of the historical context, it is assumed that the city flourished semi-
independently under the political, economic, and religious unity of the local koinon
formed by the 'Carian Chersonese' towns during the Archaic period. However, it should
be noted that the existence of the *Ktoinai* system in the region might be an indication of
the earliest political relations of Phoenix, Tymnos, Thysannous, and Tlos with Kamiros
(Fraser & Bean, 1954, p. 95). Besides, it is known that the Khersonesos (Χερσόνησος)
settlements figured as a single unit in the Athenian tribute lists, which evidently shows
that the peninsula maintained its political and economic unity during the Classical
period.

After the synoecism of the Rhodian cities, (Papachristodolou, 1999, p. 29), the Rhodian state colonized the peninsula. It ruled the region within the *integrated Peraia* from the Late Classical period, probably from the first half of the 4th century BCE throughout the Hellenistic period. Epigraphic data reveal that Kamiros ruled Phoenix during this time (Jones, 1987, p. 251). During that period, the people of Phoenix gained equal rights with the Rhodian citizens. In this way, they prospered from the beginning of the 3rd century BCE, with Rhodes' active role in the Mediterranean trade and the Bozburun Peninsula serving as a raw material source (such as timber) throughout the Hellenistic period. In this period, the town spread in the north-south direction on the Sindili plain with increased population due to prosperity and created a unique rural settlement model with farms integrated with ancient agrarian terraces. The unique burial custom of the region, namely the stepped pyramidal tombs is another cultural characteristic of Phoenix (Carter, 1982, pp. 191-192; Held, 2014, pp. 250-267). However, it is known that several earthquakes severely hit the region during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods and it might be the main reason for the interruption of the economic prosperity of Phoenix and its neighbours in antiquity.³

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1 Map of the Carian Chersonese (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

The published inscriptions from Phoenix document the cult of the following deities: Apollo, Zeus Polieus, Athena, Eleithya, Serapis, Asklepios, Dionysos, and Aphrodite (Blümel, 1991, pp. 29-45; Bresson, 1991, pp. 134-153; Durna, 2002, pp. 62-63). The inscribed stepped pyramidal tombs in the necropoleis are an indicator of the city's prosperity during the Hellenistic period. The necropoleis of Phoenix, which are located
in the southern and northern parts of the city, feature a large number of stepped-base pyramidal tombs that shows the unique burial customs of the region.

11 The Kastron-type small-sized military outpost on the south end of Acropolis, the watchtowers around the city, the pottery, and the shipwreck from Serçe harbour which is dated to the 11th and 12th centuries CE, testify to the settlement activities of the mid and late Byzantine periods at Phoenix (for Serçe harbour, see Pulak, Townsend, Koehler, & Wallace, 1987, pp. 31-57).

12 The archaeological data prove that the traditional rural lifestyle which might have been inherited from the Archaic period was continued throughout Antiquity up to the Middle Ages in the Greek village located near the Hisar Tepe acropolis and named Phoinikidou, most probably deriving from Phoenix. Yet, there are different derivatives of the site name in literary sources such as Phenikeh, Phineket, Phiniketi, or Phiniki. The modern Turkish name of the nearby town "Taşlıca", possibly inherited its name from the Trakheia Khersonesos which means the same as the Greek original "Stony Peninsula". During the Ottoman period, the area was called Tarahya/Darrahiya which is another derivative of Trakheia. After the Turkish-Greek population exchange of 1923, the Greek community of the region moved to Symi and Rhodes islands.

## Research history

13 Archaeological fieldworks in various parts of the peninsula have been carried out by several scholars since the 1990s (for Bybassos and Loryma surveys: Held, 2000, pp. 295-306; Held, 2001, pp. 149-162; Held, 2002, pp. 189-202; Held, 2003a, pp. 289-300; Held, 2003b, pp. 55-86; Held, Cankardaş şenol, & şenol, 2007, pp. 37-50; Held, Cankardaş şenol, & şenol, 2008, pp. 365-380; Held, Cankardaş şenol, & şenol, 2009, pp. 211-226. For Amos surveys and excavations: Gürbüzer, 2021, pp. 219-249. For Kıran Gölü: Kuban & Saner, 1997, pp. 433-450; Kuban & Saner, 2001, pp. 163-168; Kuban & Saner, 2002, pp. 203-208; Kuban, 2010, pp. 213-225. For Kastabos: Cook & Plommer, 1966; Wilkening & Aumann, 2015, pp. 233-247). These investigations in the peninsula provided fruitful data and advanced our knowledge of the archaeology of the Carian Chersonese. However, the southwestern part of the peninsula, including the territories of Phoenix, Thysannous, and Kasara, has never been studied systematically and has been particularly neglected hitherto.

14 Contrary to literary sources and traveller notes from the 19th century (Leake, 1824, p. 222; Durrbach & Radet, 1886, pp. 245-264; Spratt, 1886, pp. 359-360; Bent, 1888, p. 83, 671; Hicks, 1889, p. 47; Hula & Szanto, 1895, pp. 30-35; Wilhelm, 1897, pp. 71-72; Gärtringen, 1902, pp. 143-146; Chaviaras, 1913, p. 4; Grégoire, 1922, p. 92; Mauri, 1921-22, pp. 414-415; Ruge, 1931, pp. 426-428; Fraser & Bean, 1954, p. 58; Ruggieri, 1989, pp. 345-373) that helped to locate the settlement, the history of Phoenix remained elusive and the town largely undocumented and not contextualized until today, with the exception of prehistoric investigations (Atakuman et al., 2020, pp. 1-33), epigraphic studies (Blümel, 1991, p. 29 ff.; Bresson, 1991, pp. 134-153; Blümel, 2016, pp. 88-89), and dissertational GIS-based hypothetical researches (Oğuz, 2013, pp. 193-196, 223-282; Oğuz-Kırca, 2014, pp. 267-289; Oğuz-Kırca, 2015, pp. 445-488; Demirciler, 2014, pp. 28, 31, 38, 57, 59, 75, 96, 99, 100, 151-152; Doğaner, 1998, p. 31).
Hisar Tepe, the acropolis

15

Dominating the Sindili plain, Hisar Tepe is located 4 km south of modern Taşlıca village, and consists of the fortified acropolis of Phoenix (Fig. 2). This territory constituted the main fieldwork area in 2021. Our research on the Hisar Tepe revealed that the multi-layered fortifications of Phoenix are partly preserved and built with local grey limestone. The architectural evidence indicates that the first inhabitants of Phoenix built a gradual defence system on the acropolis designed with an inner and outer wall.

16

Our research on the acropolis indicates that the walls are mostly preserved in the northern and western parts, whereas the eastern side of the defence walls seems to be substantially damaged. However, owing to the steep nature of the terrain, it is possible that there was no wall built on the southern part. The data that we gathered from the fortifications support the previous hypothesis proposed by I. Pimouguet-Pidarros (1994, p. 247).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2 Aerial view of Hisar Tepe (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

17

Observations on the walls point out that the masonry is mostly isodomic except for the repairs and late additions, but it is clear that the walls were built with different construction techniques. They seem to have been repaired by the later inhabitants of Phoenix with smaller scale limestones bound with hard white mortar, which possibly shows the Byzantine period usage of the acropolis. The wall thickness varies but generally measures around one meter and the elevation is preserved roughly up to three meters high at some points. We identified at least three well-preserved bastion on the eastern side of the fortifications.

18

The strategic position of the Hisar Tepe on Sindili plain which controls the northern and southern routes between the ancient Portus Cressa (Serçe harbour) and Thysannous, might suggest that Hisar Tepe was chosen as a military garrison by the first builders.

19

Investigations on the acropolis were extended through the southeastern side of the hill which gave us the opportunity to re-explore an inscription carved directly onto the
bedrock (Fig. 3). The inscription has a 90-line long text and dates to the 3rd century BCE according to A. Bresson (1991, pp. 144-148, no. 149).⁴ It has a list of donors who contributed financially towards the construction of a temple dedicated to Dionysos. Since the inscription is *in situ*, it is possible that one of the eastern terraces of the acropolis might have been the host of the naos of the Dionysos. In any case, it provides us with important economic and religious insight into Phoenix's community and highlights the connections with the Rhodian state.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Bedrock inscription listing donors towards the construction of a temple of Dionysos (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

20 During the campaign on the southeastern side of the acropolis, we discovered an open area supported by an individual terrace wall. According to the architectural finds, such as exedra blocks, sculpture bases, inscribed rock-cut niches, and stoa remains, this area might be described as one of the public areas of the settlement like an agora or a sacred area. Besides the architectural data, we also collected Cnidian and Rhodian amphora sherds dating back to the 3rd and 2nd century BCE within this *locus*.

21 Another well-preserved and notable building on the acropolis that we identified among the vegetation is located on the southern end of the hill. It is covered with small limestone walls and includes white mortar. We also collected from this area several ceramic sherds dated to the mid and late Byzantine period, which give a glimpse of the settlement activity on the acropolis during the Middle Ages.

22 Another discovery made during the 2021 campaign and related to the acropolis is the ancient path measuring approximately 800 m. long passing through the north necropolis of Phoenix and connecting the acropolis to the Apollo sanctuary. In the next campaign, we plan to document the rest of the ancient roads and nearby remains which continue to Kasara (Asardibi), Prinari (Gedik), and Portus Cressa (Serçe Limanı)
The temple-church

23. One of the main structures of Phoenix is located approximately 2.5 km southwest of the modern village of Taşlıca and about 500 m from the acropolis (Oğuz, 2013, p. 196; Dürrbach & Radet, 1886, p. 258). In light of the plan features, there is no doubt that the existing building is a church. However, the church was placed on the foundations of an earlier building whose architectural elements of a Doric structure belonging to the Hellenistic period were used as *spolia*. Among these re-used blocks is an inscription dedicated to Apollo that was used on the walls of the building. Based on these data, the building was included in the literature as both a temple of Apollo and a church (Fig. 4-5). Although the temple-church is generally in the east-west direction, there is a 10-degree shift in the northeast-southwest directions.

24. Large blocks (limestone/marble) were used in its construction. However, their analyses were not made and therefore their quality and nature could not be determined. Although the term black marble is used for the material in the literature, it is not possible to reach a definite judgment on this subject unless analyses are made. Only the materials constituting the foundation, floor, and walls of the building have been preserved. The material used in the roof construction and doors were not preserved. However, it should be necessary to consider the possibility that wood was used in the roof construction and doors. There are technical details such as clamps and dowels on the blocks. This shows that metal was also used as a binding material, at least during the period of the temple. The data on the foundation of the building comes from the west façade. On this façade, under the podium, there are semi-finished and partially protruding blocks, varying from place to place, with an average height of 34 cm and a width of 35-86 cm.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4 The temple-church, the western side (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

25. The entrance to the Byzantine church is from the west side. Here, a 76 cm tall step is needed to provide access to the door. However, no block used for this purpose has been found in the area. No traces of crepidoma were detected on the front faces of the
podium blocks located on the western façade of the building. This situation provides evidence that the Hellenistic temple entrance should be located in the east.

26

Unless excavations are carried out in the area, it is not possible to determine the plan of the Hellenistic temple and to make predictions about it. However, the absence of a crepidoma provides evidence that the temple is not *peripteros* or *dipteros*. In this case, three suggestions remain for the temple plan type. First: it is a structure consisting only of the naos, where no columns are used. Second: it has a *templum in antis* plan type. Third: it is a structure in which the *prostylos* plan type was applied. No columns were detected in the area. Nonetheless, a stylobate block corresponding to the bottom of the column was detected. Thus, the presence of the stylobate block rules out the first of the three suggestions presented above. There remain *templum in antis* and *prostylos* plan types. It can be suggested that a solution to this problem can be found to a large extent by carrying out excavation works.

27

The plan of the building, which was converted from a temple to a church in the Byzantine period, can be seen to a large extent. However, the rubble heap and destruction at the back of the church cause some difficulties. The building consists of a narthex and three naves. In the literature research, it has been suggested that the back side of the middle nave is a semi-circular apse and the side naves are rectangular (Ruggieri, 1989, pl. 6). However, the destruction of the back side of the building did not make it possible to obtain data on this area.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5 Ground plan of the temple-church (PAP archive, architect M. Rümeysa Çakan).</figcaption></figure>

28

Apart from the orthostats, many blocks with different functions that should not have been used in the original wall were found on the church walls. Among the blocks in question, there are triglyph-metopes belonging to the frieze of a Doric structure, architraves, cornices, and some profiled blocks belonging to tombs. Owing to the use of
spolia blocks in the building, the wall thicknesses show differences and the wall thickness can vary between 70-78 cm. The best-preserved wall of the building is the wall separating the narthex and the naves, and its height is 3.03 m. Although there is evidence of clamps, dowel, and crowbar holes in the building, we have observed that they were not used intensively.

29

Two inscriptions were found on the northern jamb blocks of the north nave door. The first inscription points to Apollo (ΑΓΟΛΛΩΝΟΣΠΕ, Dürrbach & Radet, 1886, p. 258; Ruggieri, 1989, fn. 12; Bresson, 1991, p. 149, no. 151), and the second inscription to Eleithya (Ἐλειθύας, Bresson, 1991, pp. 149-150, no. 152).

30

In the light of current data, we believe that the building has two phases. In its first phase, it was a temple where there may have been worship of Apollo or Eleithya or both. Based on the above-mentioned Apollo inscription (Bresson, 1991, p. 149, no. 151), it is possible to date the temple between 250-150 BCE, providing the inscription is contemporary with its construction and not a later addition. This dating will hopefully be placed within a narrower time period with detailed studies to be carried out in the area.

31

The building was later converted into a church in its second phase. No data to provide definitive evidence regarding the date of the church could be found in the area. The building is usually dated to the end of the 5th century / the beginning of the 6th century CE (Ruggieri, 1989, p. 358).

## The Ceramic Studies: Chronological Overview

32

Ceramic finds picked up during the survey were subjected to a first assessment, and we were lucky to see the densities, chronological continuity, presence, or absence of some popular imported potteries. Among these finds, the earliest datable sherd, which might belong to a *kotyle*, can be dated to the first quarter of the 6th century BCE which alters what we hitherto knew of the chronology of Phoenix. As a result, a *terminus post quem* for settlement activities at Phoenix can now be placed in the Archaic period.

33

The canonical Rhodian and so-called Rhodian local amphoras, and especially the mushroom type and Cnidian amphoras, were also popular at Phoenix during the Hellenistic period. On the other hand, the absence of the early Roman imperial period pottery gives a hint about a *hiatus* which shows similarities with the other settlements on the Bozburun Peninsula (Held, 2005, pp. 85-100; Gürbüzer, 2021, pp. 219-249; Yaman, 2022, pp. 113-128).

34

However, the existence of some red slip wares such as LRC Hayes Form 3, LRD Hayes Form 9 and globular amphora sherds show us the continuity of the settlement in late antiquity. However, we should note that the latest datable sherds belong to the 7th century CE in Phoenix and there might be another gap in material culture until the 11th century.

35

The glazed sherds from the acropolis clearly show the mid and late Byzantine activities on Hisar Tepe. We will expand the ceramological research next year and plan to make an archaeometric analysis of the locally produced sherds to enlighten our knowledge about pottery production and their distributions in the region.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6 Chronological overview of the ceramics (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

Mapping and Documenting

36 An area covering 90 hectares was mapped and documented for the Phoenix Archaeological Project. UAV Photogrammetry was used to achieve the best description of the topography. Numerous Ground Control Points (GCPs) have been installed in the documentation area and these GCPs will be used to georeference aerial photographs, as well as a temporary tarpaulin that does not damage the site. GCPs were measured with Spectra SP60 model GNSS receivers, at 15 epochs, 2 times at 1-hour intervals, using the RTK (Real Time Kinematics) technique with sub-cm sensitivity. The RTK technique works with at least two receivers. With the use of one as a base station and the other as a rover, it provides sub-cm accuracy with instantaneous corrections from the Base.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7 Image from the 3D model: solid-textured (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

37 Two flights were made with a DJI Phantom 4 Pro model drone. The general flight was made at 3.9 px/cm GSD (Ground Sampling Distance) resolution. The Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) is the distance between two consecutive pixel centres measured on the ground. High-resolution flight is flown closer and has a resolution of 1 cm/px. Data such as Orthophoto, 3D Model, DEM data, and Dense Point Cloud were produced from the flights. The aerial photographs were taken as an overlay in proportions and a
Stereo Model was created. A 1/1000 topographic map was produced from stereo models by using 3D Glasses with the precision method. Coordinated data from all disciplines (geophysics, architecture, etc.) can be processed on the topographical map produced.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8 A section from the GRID System (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

However, since we have large data from different disciplines and data will be entered regularly every year, these must be recorded and stored in a certain systematic way. We created a GRID system and we added it to the GIS database. This GRID system covers the entire documentation area of 25 x 25 m intervals. Each cell is uniquely named in a particular order. The created GRID system can be used with GNNS receivers as base map data. Thus, we can instantly know which cell we are in and record the data with its coordinates and original name. This GRID system will provide us with great convenience in archiving stratified data in the coming years.

## The Necropolis Area of Burgaz Tepe and Tülü Tepe

An inventory of the funerary structures visible on the surface was undertaken. These are spread over a large area ranging from the eastern and southern slopes of Burgaz Tepe (Fig. 9) to those of Tülü Tepe further south. The northern limit is the lower slope above the temple-church, and the southern limit is the southern hillside of Tülü Tepe. The sloppy nature of the terrain led to the development of numerous terraces whose retaining walls are mostly well preserved. The aim of our study was to document these funerary terraces whose construction techniques range from rough dry stone walls to neat ashlar stone masonry. We identified a total of 58 of these terraces which were numbered and arranged (north to south) following the ancient path leading from the temple-church towards the acropolis.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9 Funerary terraces on the lower hillside of Bugaz Tepe (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

40

Funerary terraces fall into two groups: those on which the presence of tomb markers can be seen, and neatly built terraces without a marker whose construction techniques are similar to the first group. Other more modest terraces were probably used for burial purposes, but apart from the fact that these simple terraces are intertwined with their funerary counterparts, there is no other evidence on the surface indicating a burial function. We cannot give a definite answer without excavation. Likewise, it is not possible to propose reliable dating without obtaining archaeological material. However, we were able to make some chronological evaluations of the building stones and masonry techniques, and shapes used in the terraces. As mentioned above, the earliest datable sherd found so far at Phoenix, which might belong to a *kotyle*, and dated to the first quarter of the 6th century BCE, was found on the ancient path going through the Burgaz necropolis. It is likely that this Archaic sherd came from one of the tombs overlooking the path. Funerary markers are usually stepped marble blocks that are either rectangular or pyramidal in shape and are culturally distinctive to this area. During the 2021 campaign, we recorded more than 110 burial markers of various shapes whose typology is under investigation. Most of these tombstones have fallen down the slopes, but some examples are still in their original position, standing on their purposefully built terraces (Fig. 10). A few more complex funerary structures round in shape were identified and will be the subject of a more detailed study during the next campaign.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10 Terrace (MT 8) with stepped rectangular funerary marker in situ (PAP archive).</figcaption></figure>

## Public Archaeology at Phoenix: Cultural and Ecological Heritage Program

41 Besides the scientific studies, we also carried out a cultural and ecological heritage education program for children who live in the region.⁵ The main objectives of the program were to help children to recognize, understand and protect the cultural and ecological heritage of the land they live in and to transfer the heritage they have to future generations. Raising individuals who are sensitive to archaeology and related issues, who have gained awareness as well as tolerance towards different cultures and their own, and who are conscious and responsible, are among the expectations of the project.

42 For this purpose, we collaborated with the local bureau of the Ministry of Education, the Mediterranean Conservation Society, and the creative drama organisation named *Müzede Drama*. During the field season, we educated more than a hundred children in Söğüt Elementary school for three weeks. We plan to continue this program for the next five years systematically.⁶

## Filling the Gap: Oral History Interviews

43 In 2021, we also conducted oral history interviews with the elderly people of modern Taşlıca village and recorded oral histories. The local stories, photographs, letters, and other artifacts can be a very effective way of capturing information that is difficult to obtain by any other means. Oral accounts can serve to complement other kinds of information significantly.

44 We gathered very useful information about the local culture, food, and local stories from the late Ottoman and early Turkish Republican periods. We will expand the oral
history interviews to document the other intangible heritage elements in Söğüt village
in the following years.

Rural Architecture Documentation and Preservation
Program

45 We started to document the traditional residential architecture, windmills, cistern structures, agricultural terraces, and religious sites of Taşlıca (Fenaket), Söğüt, and Aziziye (Karamaka) villages located in the southwestern part of the Bozburun Peninsula which falls within the scope of the project. The program aims to record the tangible and intangible cultural values of the region, increase awareness of the traditional architectural texture, and keep our common heritage alive.

46 Rural areas subject to the project are located on the borders of the Marmaris District, Bozburun Peninsula, where domestic and foreign tourism is intense. Therefore, these areas are open to destruction due to population growth and irregular construction. In Taşlıca and Söğüt villages, where human and natural destruction continues today, no study on traditional architecture has been conducted hitherto. In order to protect the local texture, which is losing its unique identity day by day, holistic and sustainable conservation strategies will be determined by using basic working methods in the field of architecture.

47 During the fieldwork season, the main body of our work was to document the traditional architectural elements in Taşlıca (Fenaket), Söğüt, and Aziziye (Karamaka) villages, to make detailed descriptions and take detailed photographs. Methods such as digitizing the data obtained from field studies through programs such as Autocad and making an inventory by processing it into a digital database are also applied. This program is carrying out and managing the process with a scientific team consisting of different disciplines in order to keep historical and local values alive and to make them sustainable. We plan to extend the documentation process to the Phoinikidou (Fenaket) Greek village in 2022.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bent, J. T. (1888). Discoveries in Asia Minor. *The Journal of Hellenic Studies*, 9, 82-87.

Blümel, W. (1991). *Die Inschriften der Rhodischen Peraia*. Bonn: Habelt.

Blümel, W. (2016). Addenda und Corrigenda zu IK 38 (Rhodische Peraia). *Epigraphica Anatolica*, 49, 85-105.

Bresson, A. (1991). *Recueil des inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne (Pérée intégrée)*. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Cahn, H. A. (1970). *Knidos, die Münzen des sechsten und des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine*. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Carter, R. (1982). The 'stepped pyramids' of the Loryma Peninsula. *Istanbuler Mitteilungen*, 32, 176-195.

Chaviaras, M., & Chaviaras, N. (1913). Περαίας της Ροδίων έπιγραφαί. ΑΕ, 9, 1-16.

Cook, J. M., & Plommer, W. H. (1966). *The Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos*. London: Cambridge University Press.

Demirciler, V. (2014). *Agricultural Terraces and Farmsteads of Bozburun Peninsula in Antiquity* (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University). Ankara.

Doğaner, S. (1999). Bozburun Yarımadası: Coğrafya ve İnsan. *Coğrafya Dergisi*, 7, 29-56.

Durna, G. E (2002). *Antik Çağda Güneybatı Anadolu (Karia) Bölgesi'nde Aphrodite Kültü. Aphrodite Karakterine Analitik bir Yaklaşım* (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara University). Ankara.

Dürrbach, F., & Radet, G. A. (1886). Inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne. *BCH*, 10, 245-269.

Fraser, P. M., & Bean, G. E. (1954). *The Rhodian Peraea and Islands*. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege.

Grégoire, H. (1922). *Recueil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure, publié sous les auspices de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres*. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Gürbüzer, M. (2021). Amos'ta Yeni Araştırmalar ve Bulgular. *Cedrus*, IX, 219-249.

Gürer Çatal, E. Y. (2019). *Rhodos Peraiası ve Rhodos'un Karia Üzerindeki Etkileri* (Unpublished master's thesis, Istanbul University). Istanbul.

Held, W. (2000). Forschungen in Loryma 1998. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 17(2), 295-306.

Held, W. (2001). Forschungen in Loryma 1999. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 18(1), 149-162.

Held, W. (2002). Forschungen in Loryma 2000. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 19(1), 189-202.

Held, W. (2003). Neue und revidierte Inschriften aus Loryma und der Karischen Chersones. *Epigraphica Anatolica*, 36, 55-86.

Held, W. (2005). Loryma ve Karia Chersonesos'unun Yerleşim Sistemi. *Olba*, XII, 85-103.

Held, W. (2009). Die Karer und die Rhodische Peraia. In F. Rumscheid (Ed.), *Die Karer und die Anderen: internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin*, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005 (pp. 121-134). Bonn: Habelt.

Held, W. (2010). Die Heiligtümer und Külte von Loryma. In R. van Bremen & J. M. Carbon (Eds.), *Hellenistic Caria* (pp. 355-576). Bordeaux: Ausonius.

Held, W. (2013). Heiligtümer und lokale Identität auf der karischen Chersones. In P. Brun, L. Cavalier, K. Konuk, & F. Prost (Eds.), *Euploia. La Lycie et la Carie antiques. Dynamiques des territoires, échanges et identities* (pp. 93-100). Bordeaux: Ausonius.

Held, W. (2014a). Hafen der Rhodischen Peraia. *Byzas*, 19, 357-375.

Held, W. (2014b). Hellenistische Grabmonumente der Karischen Chersones. In A. Matthaei & M. Zimmermann (Eds.), *Stadtkultur im Hellenismus* (pp. 250-267). Heidelberg: Verlag Antike.

Held, W., Cankardaş, Ş., & şenol, A. K. (2007). 2005 Yılı Bybassos Araştırması. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 24(1), 37-50.

Held, W., Cankardaş, Ş., & şenol, A. K. (2008). 2006 Yılı Bybassos Araştırması. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 25(1), 365-380.
Held, W., Cankardaş, Ş., & Şenol, A. K. (2009). 2007 Yılı Bybassos Araştırması. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 26(3), 211-226.

Hiller von Gaertringen, W. (1902). Anhang über die Tloer. *Hermes*, 37, 143-146.

Hula, E., & Szanto, E. (1894). Bericht über eine Reise in Karien. Vienna: E. Tempsky.

Jones, N. F. (1987). *Public Organization in Ancient Greece*. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Kuban, Z. (2010). Karya, Bozburun Yarımadası, Kıran Gölü Kutsal Alanı Yüzey Araştırması Sırasında Tespit Edilen Tarımsal Üniteler. In Ü. Aydınoğlu & A. K. şenol (Eds.), *Antik Çağda Anadolu'da Zeytinyağı ve Şarap Üretimi*, 06-08 Kasım 2008, Mersin (pp. 213-226). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Leake, W. M. (1824). *Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor: with comparative remarks on the ancient and modern geography of that country*. London: John Murray.

Mauri, A. (1921-22). Viaggio di Esplorazione in Caria. *Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente*, IV-V, 397-404.

Meiggs, R. (1972). *The Athenian Empire*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Newton, C. T. (1865). *Travels & Discoveries in the Levant*. vol. 2. London: Day and Son Limited.

Oğuz, E. D. (2013). *The Rural Settlement Pattern in Bozburun Peninsula during Classical and Hellenistic Periods* (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University). Ankara.

Oğuz-Kırcı, E. D. (2014). Some Thoughts on the Problem of Identification of Demes: The Ancient Bozburun Peninsula. *Cedrus*, 2, 267-289.

Oğuz-Kırcı, E. D. (2015). The Ancient Population of a Chersonessian Heir: Phoinix. TAD, 58, 445-488.

Papachristodoulou, I. (1999). The Rhodian Demes within the Framework of the Function of the Rhodian State. In V. Gabrielsen, P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad & J. Zahle (Eds.), *Hellenistic Rhodes: politics, culture, and Society* (pp. 27-44). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Pimouguet-Pedarros, I. (1994). Les fortifications de la Pérée rhodienne. *Revue des Études Anciennes*, 96(1-2), 243-271.

Philippson, A. (1915). *Reisen und Forschungen im westlichen Kleinasien. Schlussheft, Karien südlich des Mäander und das westliche Lykien*. Gotha: J. Perthes.

Pulak, C., Townsend, R. F., Koehler, C. G., & Wallace, M. B. (1987). The Hellenistic Shipwreck at Serçe Limanı, Turkey: Preliminary Report. *American Journal of Archaeology*, 91, 31-57.

Ruge, W. (1931). Stratonikeia. RE, IV A-1, 322-325.

Ruggieri, V. (1989). Rilievi di architettura bizantina nel golfo di Simi. Seconda parte. *Orientalia Christiana Periodica*, 55, 345-373.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (1997). Kıran Gölü 1995. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 14(2), 433-450.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2000). Kıran Gölü 1998. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 17(2), 287-294.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2001). Kıran Gölü 1999. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 18(1), 163-168.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2002). Kıran Gölü Kutsal Alanı 2000. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 19(1), 203-208.
Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2003). Kıran Gölü Kutsal Alanı. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 20*(1), 283-288.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2005). Kıran Gölü Kutsal Alanı 2003. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 22*(2), 129-136.

Saner, T., & Kuban, Z. (2006). Kıran Gölü Kutsal Alanı 2004. *Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 23*(2), 395-402.

Stephanos Byzantios, *Ethnica*.

Strabo, *Geographica*.

Spratt, T. A. B. (1886). Remarks on the Dorian Peninsula and Gulf, with Notes on a Temple of Latona there. *Archaeologia, 49*, 345-366.

Spratt, T. A. B., & Forbes, E. (1847). *Travels in Lycia, Milyas, and the Cibyratis*. vol. 1. London: van Voorst.

Tchihatcheff, P., De (1867). *Asie Mineure. Description physique de cette contrée, Quatrième partie, Géologie*. vol. 1. Paris: L. Guérin.

Twidale, C. R., & Romaní, J. R. V. (2005). *Landforms and geology of granite terrains*. London: CRC Press.

Wilhelm, A. D. (1897). Notes sur des inscriptions de Phoinix et d'Idyma. *AEMÖ, 20*, 71-72.

Wilkening-Aumann, C. (2015). The Hellenistic Theatre in the Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos (Asia Minor): New Evidence and Reconstruction. In R. Frederiksen, E. R. Gebhard & A. Sokolicek (Eds.), *The architecture of the ancient Greek theatre: Acts of an international conference at the Danish Institute at Athens, 27-30 January 2012* (pp. 233-247). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Yaman, A. (2022). Amos Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmalarında Ele Geçen Seramikler. *Olba, XXX*, 113-128.

NOTES

1. We would like to warmly thank the General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums for their permission and generous support. We are also grateful to the state representative Tuba Konuk from Bilecik Museum for her endless efforts.

2. The contemporary art program is ongoing with the collaboration of Pasaj, an independent art initiative based in Istanbul and headed by the curators Zeynep Okyay, Aslıhan Güçlü and Aslı Dinç.

3. For notable earthquakes that hit the Dodecanese Islands and neighbouring Carian shores in antiquity, see Ambraseys, 2016, pp. 91-92, 125, 128, 143, 176, 180.

4. The epigraphic material is being investigated by Anna Sitz and Koray Konuk who have started to re-assess the published material and study the new inscriptions that were discovered at Phoenix in 2021.

5. The Cultural and Ecological Heritage Program is ongoing under the Public Archaeology Program which is directed by Işılay Gürsu Massa.

6. We are grateful to the officers of the local bureau of the Ministry of Education, Marmaris District Governorate, the members of the Mediterranean Conservation Society, and the creative drama leader Ms. Gül Bulut. This program was made possible thanks to their support and endless efforts.
## ABSTRACTS

Located in the southwestern part of the Bozburun Peninsula (Marmaris), the ancient site of Phoenix was the subject of a first multidisciplinary archaeological survey campaign in September 2021. The fieldwork aimed to better understand the town planning of the site in general, as well as certain structures in particular such as the temple of Apollo converted into a church, the acropolis, and the necropoleis dotted with numerous terraces. In addition to purely archaeological research, we also carried out a cultural and ecological heritage education program for children who live in the region. We also started a program to document the area's rural architecture and conducted oral history interviews with the elderly people of Taşlıca village.

Situé dans la partie sud-ouest de la péninsule de Bozburun (Marmaris), le site antique de Phoenix a fait l'objet d'une première campagne de prospection archéologique multidisciplinaire durant le mois de septembre 2021. Les travaux sur le terrain avaient pour objectif de mieux connaître l'espace urbain du site en général, ainsi que certaines structures en particulier, comme le temple d'Apollon transformé en église, l'acropole et les nécropoles parsemées de nombreuses terrasses. Parallèlement à nos recherches purement archéologiques, nous avons pu mettre en œuvre un programme d'éducation sur le patrimoine culturel et écologique pour les enfants vivant dans la région. Nous avons également lancé un programme pour documenter l'architecture rurale de la région et nous avons mené des entretiens d'histoire orale avec les personnes âgées du village de Taşlıca.

## INDEX

**Mots-clés:** Carie, Phoenix, Bozburun, Chersonèse de Carie, Pérée rhodienne

**Keywords:** Caria, Phoenix, Bozburun, Carian Chersonese, Rhodian Peraia

## AUTHORS

ASIL YAMAN

Project Director, The University of Pennsylvania Museum, Mediterranean Section

KORAY KONUK

Assoc. Prof., Deputy Director, CNRS, Ausonius Institute

ÖĞR. ÜYESI TAYLAN DOĞAN

Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University

ANNA SITZ

Universität Heidelberg

MERVE YEŞIL

İsparta Süleyman Demirel University
İLAYDA ALIKAYA

Ege University

DILARA TAKI

Necmettin Erbakan University

ASLI DINÇ

PASAJ

ZEYNEP OKYAY

PASAJ

AYŞE ÖZAYDIN

independent photographer

TUBA KONUK

Bilecik Museum

MEHMET SERHAT AYDEMIR

MESA