Fieldwork at Phoenix 2022

Asil Yaman, Koray Konuk, Anna Sitz, Ilayda Alikaya, Dilara Takı, Rumeysa Çakan

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

To cite this version:

Asil Yaman, Koray Konuk, Anna Sitz, Ilayda Alikaya, Dilara Takı, et al. Fieldwork at Phoenix 2022. 43rd International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, Oct 2023, Ankara, Turkey. pp.185-198. [hal-04826532](https://hal.science/hal-04826532v1)

HAL Id: hal-04826532

https://hal.science/hal-04826532v1

Submitted on 9 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

39. ARAŞTIRMA
SONUÇLARI TOPLANTISI
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü

43. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve
Arkeometri Sempozyumu

39. ARAŞTIRMA SONUÇLARI
TOPLANTISI

CİLT 1

16-20 EKİM 2023
ANKARA
T.C. KÜLTÜR VE TURİZM BAKANLIĞI ANA YAYIN NO: 3767/1

Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Ana Yayın No: 200/1

**Editör**

Doç. Dr. Erol EVCİN

16-20 Ekim 2023 tarihlerinde Ankara'da düzenlenen 43. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi'nin katkılarıyla gerçekleştirmiştir.

TK: 978-975-17-5866-8

ISBN: 978-975-17-5867-5

**Grafik Tasarım**

Nihal KARAPEK

**Kapak Fotoğrafi**

Karataş Köyünde tespit edilen prizma formlu yazıtlı taş.

**Not:** Araştırma raporları, dil ve yazım açısından Doç. Dr. Erol EVCİN tarafından denetlenmiştir. Yayımlanan yazıların içeriğinden yazarları sorumludur.

Ankara 2024
## İÇİNDEKİLER

Abdulkadir ÖZDEMİR, Ayşe ÖZDEMİR

ELAZIĞ İLİ MERKEZ İLÇESİ PREHİSTORİK DÖNEMARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI
(EPAS): 2022 YILI HARPUT PLATOSU VE ELAZIĞ OVASI ÇEVRESİ 7

Abdullah BAKIR

ISPARTA İLİ ULUBORLU İLÇESİ TÜRKİYE SELÇUKLU VE BEYLİKLER DÖNEMİ 2022
YILI YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 23

Abuzer KIZIL

2022 YILI EUROMOS ANTİK KENTİ VE ÇEVRESİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 43

Adnan ÇEVİK, Ahmet Oğuzhan KARAÇETİN

MALAZGİRT SAVAŞ ALANININ TESPİTİ, Tarihî VE ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 57

Ahmet MÖREL, Okan ÖZDEMİR

ADADA ANTİK KENTİ TANRI İMPARATORLAR VE ZEUS MEGİSTOS SERAPİS TAPINAĞI
ÖN DEĞERLENDİRMELER 75

Gülriz KOZBE, Akarcan GÜNGÖR

ŞIRNAK İLİ CİZRE, SİLOPİ VE İDİL İLÇELERİ İLE MARDİN İLİ NUSAYBİN İLÇESİ
YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI, 2022 89

Akın TEMÜR, Ayla BAŞ, Bünyamin KIVRAK, Gözde YENİAY,
Nagihan ÇAKIR, Burcu KAYA, Sefa TORUN, Sinan Emre SEREN

NEOKLAUDİOPOLİS ANTİK KENTİ VE TERRİTORYUMU 2022 YILI YÜZEY
ARAŞTIRMASI 115

Alpaslan CEYLAN, Nezahat CEYLAN, Oktay ÖZGÜL, Yavuz GÜNAŞDI, İbrahim ÜNGÖR

2022 YILI ERZURUM - ERZİNCAN İLLERİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 135

Alper GÖLBAŞ

ARAPGİR ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 SEZONU 151

Anar AZİZSOY

KASTAMONU'DA TÜRK DÖNEMİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMALARI: ARAÇ VE KIRSALI (2022
YILI ÇALIŞMALARI) 169
Asil YAMAN, Koray KONUK, Anna M SITZ, İlayda ALİKAYA,
Dilara TAKI, Rumeysa ÇAKAN, Mehmet Serhat AYDEMİR

FIELDWORK AT PHOENIX 2022

185

Ayhan YARDİMCİEL, Atilla KARATAŞ,

Taner AYDIN, Ebru MANDACI, Ersin DOĞANTEKİN

AĞRI-İĞDIR İLLERİ ORTA VE SON TUNÇ ÇAĞI ARAS BOYALILARI KÜLTÜRÜ KALE,
NEKROPOL, YERLEŞİM YERİ VE ÇANAK ÇÖMLEKLERİ 2022 YILI YÜZEY

ARAŞTIRMASI

199

Aydın ERÖN, Suat ATEŞLİER, Murat ÇEKİLMEZ, Erdal İSBİR, Barış GÜR,

Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL, Nihal AKILLI, Ahmet Ali ALTIN, Nergis ATAÇ, Merve Sultan ÇAKAN,
Özgün ÖZ, Kemal ERSAVAŞ, Recep TAŞKIN, Mustafa ÜZÜMCÜ, Selin YENİGELEN,

Aytül ÖRGEN, Fırat KARAMAN, Merve ZEYBEK, Ali Rıza KÜTÜK

KUŞADASI İLÇESİ VE SAMSUN (MYKALE) DAĞI YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI PROJESİ: 2022
YILI ÇALIŞMALARI
211

Ayşe BELGİN HENRY

KOZKALESİ/HATAY YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2021-2022

229

Ayşe ÇALIK ROSS

KOCAELİ İLİ VE İLÇELERİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMASI

243

Ayşin ÖZÜGÜL, Bilge AR, Umut ALMAÇ, Mustafa SAYAN

AYATEKLA (MERYEMLİK) YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022

267

Aytekin BÜYÜKÖZER, Zeliha GİDER BÜYÜKÖZER, Abdullah KADAİFCİ, Metin AYDIN

STRATONIKEIA TERRİTORİUMU 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMALARI

279

Barış YENER, Polat ULUSOY, Şeniz YENER, Tolga ABALI, Muhammed ERGENÇ

KOLOSSAI ANTİK KENTİ VE TERRİTORYUMU 2022 YILI ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMALARI (2. SEZON)
299

Berkay DİNÇER, Serkan ŞAHİN, Göknur KARAHAN, Cemil DUMANLIOĞLU

BATI AFYONKARAHİSAR PALEOLİTİK ÇAĞ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI-2022 (MERKEZ, ŞUHUT, SİNANPAŞA İLÇELERİ)
313

Betül FINDIK, Serdar MAYDA, F. Arzu DEMİREL, Rıdvan Can PARMAK

BURDUR İLİ PALEOLİTİK ÇAĞ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI-2022

331
Bilge YILMAZ-KOLANCI, Ozan GÜMELİ, Tarık URGAN, Adem YURTSEVER, Gözde ADIGÜZEL
ÇEVİK, Armağan ÖZKAN, Eda OVA, Salih Okan AKGÖNÜL, Yiğit Burak YÜKSEKTEPE, Yeliz KIZAN GAYIRHAN, Gül BAŞSORKUN, Saniye DEDE, İlkay GÖÇMEN, Emine BİLGİÇ-KAVAK, Mustafa EKMEKCI-Elif Ecrin DEVECİ, Hidaye BAL-BİÇEN, Gamze SAYIN, Hidaye BAL-BİÇEN, Gamze BAŞARMIŞ, Ahmet SALTAN, Mehmet Sait SÜTCÜ, Tevfik Orkun DEVELİ, Cihan ÇOLAK, Elif Meriç İLKİMEN, Gürkan SEMİZ, Batıkan GÜNAL, Gürçay Kıvanç AKYILDIZ, Gürçay Kıvanç AKYILDIZ, Tennur YAŞAR

ATTOUDA ARAŞTIRMALARI 2022 345

Billur TEKKÖK-KARAÖZ, Deniz TAMER, Ebru TAMER, Serdar AKERDEM

KERAMOS ANTİK KENTİ 2022 YILI YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 365

Birgül ÖĞÜT, Matthias LANGE

2022 YILI GAZİANTEP İLİ ŞEHİTKAMİL İLÇESİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 385

Cennet PİŞKİN-AYVAZOĞLU, Yağmur PAYDAŞ, Şükran ÖZBERK

YALOVA İLİ ve İLÇELERİ ANTİK ÇAĞ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI-2022 397

Çağrı Murat TARHAN

ACIPAYAM (KAZANES) OVASI HÖYÜK YERLEŞİMLERİNİN SİSTEMATİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 411

Deniz Kaplan, Şener Yıldırım, Taner Akar, Zehra Güneş

TARSUS İLÇESİ HİNTERLANDI ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI (2022) 423

Derya YILMAZ

NEOLİTİK ÇAĞ'DAN DEMİR ÇAĞI SONUNA KADAR ANKARA İLİ GÖLBAŞI İLÇESİ İLE HAYMANA İLÇESİ DEREKÖY MAHALLESİ 2022 YILI YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI (AGHA 2022) 431

Duygu Sevil AKAR TANRIVER, Serhat FOÇA

YAMANLAR DAĞI YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMALARI 449

Emre ERDAN, Özden ÜRKMEZ, Nihan AYDOĞMUŞ, Barış GÜR, Gül Tuğçe TOPRAK, Özgün ÖZ, Kemal ERSAVAŞ, Fehmi KESKİN, Yiğit Burak YÜKSEKTEPE, Yağız TAŞDELEN, Umut Mızrak ERSEZEN, Dilan CENGİZ, Cihan Deniz GÖZE, Ecrin Nur BURGAZLI, Seray AKIN, Ferit BAYCUMAN

TİSNA ANTİK KENTİ VE YAKIN ÇEVRESİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMALARI 463
Emre ERTEN

ESKİŞEHİR İLİ EPİGRAFİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI: 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMALARINA GENEL BİR BAKIŞ 479

Ergül KODAŞ, Rüstem CİN, Bahattin İPEK, Kazım ÖZKAN, Onur Dinç

MARDİN İLİ ARTUKLU, KIZILTEPE, YEŞİLLİ VE NUSAYBİN İLÇELERİ PLEİSTOSEN VE ERKEN HOLOSEN DÖNEM ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 483

Erkan ATAK

KOCAELİ İLİ İZMİT İLÇESİ'NDEKİ OSMANLI DÖNEMİ ESERLERİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI 2022 YILI ÇALIŞMALARI 499

Ertekin M DOKSANALTI, İbrahim KARAOĞLAN, Derviş Ozan TOZLUCA, Songül SÖZEL, Kadriye Merve SELEK, Simge Yağmur KILINÇ

DATÇA-KNİDOS HİNTERLANDI ARKEOLOJİK YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI: 2022 515

Eylem GÜZEL, Necla ARSLAN SEVİN, Cengiz ŞEKER, A. Sinan GÜLER

BOZDAĞ YAYLALARINDA AYDINOĞULLARI VE OSMANLI DÖNEMİ YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMASI (2022) 531
FIELDWORK AT PHOENIX 2022

Asil YAMAN*

Koray KONUK

Anna M SITZ

İlayda ALİKAYA

Dilara TAKI

Rumeysa ÇAKAN

Mehmet Serhat AYDEMİR

Phoenix/Phoinix (Φoïvıξ) 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 Peraea, especially in the Hellenistic Period.

The second year of field survey at ancient Phoenix<fnref n="1" /> have been held in September 2022 with multinational team members, focusing mainly on the southern *chora* of the site, which covers about 450 hectares of rural and mountainous terrain (Map: 1).<fnref n="2" /> The focus in 2022 intensive fieldwork was on the identification and mapping of various archaeological features, particularly agricultural workshops and farmsteads and their associated spaces. The result of these efforts provided valuable insights into the spatial distribution of these features in the Phoenix Region.

<footnote>* Dr. Asil Yaman (Project Director), The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Mediterranean Section, Philadelphia, USA, E-posta: ayaman@upenn.edu</footnote>

<footnote>Assoc. Prof. Dr. Koray Konuk, Université Bordeaux-Montaigne, Institut Ausonius, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Bordeaux, France, E-posta: koraykonuk@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote>Dr. Anna Marie Sitz, Universität Tübingen, Philosophische Fakultät, Tübingen, Germany, E-posta: anna-marie.sitz@uni-tuebingen.de</footnote>

<footnote>Archaeologist (M.A.), İlayda Alikaya, E-posta: ilayda.alikayal1@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote>Art Historian (M.A.), Dilara Takı, E-posta: takidilara@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote>Lecturer, Architect, Rumeysa Çakan, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Design, Antalya, E-posta: rumeysa.cakan@alanya.edu.tr</footnote>

<footnote>Topographical Engineer, Mehmet Serhat Aydemir, Mesa Engineering Company, E-posta: mehmetserhataydemir@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1. For preliminary reports of the 2021 season, see Yaman et al. 2022, 185-202; Yaman 2022, 105-126. The 2021 fieldwork was presented at the 124th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in New Orleans and at the 42nd International Symposium on Excavation, Survey and Archaeometry in Denizli, 22-29 May 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. 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 Alper Serhan Daltekin from Kocaeli Cultural Heritage Preservation Board for his endless efforts. This research received academic and financial support from Hellenic College, Mary Jaharis Byzantine Art and Culture Institute, Penn Museum, Universität Heidelberg, and University Bordeaux Montaigne's Ausonius Institute. This research received financial support from the French government in the framework of the University of Bordeaux's IdEx "Investments for the Future" program / GPR "Human Past". We thank the institutes that generously supported our scientific fieldwork in 2022.</footnote>
Our fieldwork also included a specific study of remains from the late Ottoman Period, with a particular focus on the traditional and vernacular rural architecture of Taşlıca. To this end, in addition to archaeological exploration in the rural *chora*, our attention during the 2022 fieldwork focused on two neighbourhoods of Phoinikoudi: Lower Fenaket and Yukarı Fenaket (Anti Phoinikoudi)<fnref n="3" />, an abandoned Greek town in the Sindili Plain near the Phoenix Acropolis. In addition, the Phoenix team engaged in research on local and traditional gastronomy by organising workshops and public events, such as festivals open to the Taşlıca population, aimed at preserving and sharing elements of this intangible cultural heritage. In addition to the archaeological fieldwork in the southern *chora*, we continued our oral history studies by conducting interviews with older residents of the region, which shed light on the modern history and way of life of the region. During this process, we simultaneously conducted epigraphic studies and the PhoenixBYZ sub-project, in conjunction with other research initiatives.<fnref n="4" />

## PHOINIKOUDI (FENAKET)

One of the focal points of our investigations in 2022 was the exploration of Phoinikoudi, now called Fenaket, an abandoned Greek village located in two distinct quarters in the southeast and southwest of the Sindili Plain near the acropolis of Phoenix Hisartepe. The lower quarter of Phoinikoudi, which lies in close proximity to the southern base of the Acropolis, is called “Lower Phoinikoudi”. A dried-up watercourse known as “Büğüş” divides this settlement into two segments.

Within the boundaries of Lower Phoinikoudi, 44 houses, an olive oil workshop, a chapel, rock cut cisterns and at least three different architectural typologies were discovered (Figure 1-3). The archaeological finds indicate that Phoinikoudi was inhabited until the late phase of the Ottoman Period. However, it is worth noting that the presence of terraces, pyramidal tombs with stepped bases, Rhodian-style funerary altars and funerary stelae suggests that this area may have formed part of the southern necropolis of the site of Phoenix. It is believed that this zone was converted into a residential site during the Middle Ages, using building materials for wall construction. The remains of a barely preserved apse indicate the possible presence of a small chapel at this site.

Our research resulted in the recording and identification of datable ceramics, confirming that the earliest human activity in the area dates to around the 4th century BCE and continued uninterrupted into the later stages of the Ottoman era at Phoinikoudi. After the completion of the fieldwork in Lower Phoinikoudi (Figure: 1), our exploration efforts were extended to Upper Phoinikoudi, which lies to the west of the Sindili Plain (Figure: 2). In this sector of Phoinikoudi, we carefully documented 38 traditional dwellings that show architectural

<footnote n="3">³ There are different forms of the site name in literary sources such as Phenikeh, Phineket, Phiniketi, or Phiniki. See Yaman et al. 2022, 190; Yaman 2022, 105-125.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Koray Konuk and Anna Sitz are responsible for the PhoenixEpigraphy sub-project.</footnote>
similarities to the examples observed in Lower Phoinikoudi. In addition to the archaeological evidence, the oral interviews we conducted with the inhabitants of Taşlıca indicated that the inhabitants of Phoinikoudi left the settlement due to the obligatory Turkish-Greek population exchange in 1923. We found an unused rifle cartridge stamped on its back with the date 1886 and the Greek letters Ε – Σ (for Ελληνικός Στρατός), together with the monogram GR which stands for Georg Roth, an Austro-Hungarian ammunition manufacturer. These cartridges, commissioned by the Greek army, were made for French Gras assault rifles, a weapon of choice of Greek guerillas fighting the Ottomans. As a result of our investigation, we were able to identify the multi-layered character of Upper Phoinikoudi, as evidenced by a Chamasorionic-type tomb, a workshop with a press, six cisterns carved into the rock and a single vaulted cistern, as well as a considerable accumulation of Hellenistic ceramic fragments within the mediaeval settlement remains.

## DOCUMENTATION OF THE RURAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD

Architectural documentation in the settlements of Lower Phoinikoudi (Fenaket) and Upper Phoinikoudi was carried out using a combination of traditional and modern techniques. First, the houses were numbered with location codes according to the numerical system. Sketches with simple measurements were made of all structures identified in the field. The drawings were placed at the boundaries on the baseline at a scale of 1/10000. The field coordinates of the destroyed buildings that were not visible on the map were taken and recorded. The buildings best preserved in terms of condition were selected and digitised by drone photography. Five residential buildings with different ground plan features, largely preserved walls and legible architectural elements were documented in detail as part of this study.

Lower Phoinikoudi was built in the valley on the southern slope of the Phoenix acropolis and is now an abandoned settlement. There is a stream bed in the valley whose waters no longer flow. There are residential buildings on the terraces installed on the slopes of the hills and in the plain between two opposite hills. It was also noted that there are units such as cisterns and workshops, which are believed to have been shared to meet housing needs. A total of forty-four residential buildings and two cisterns were identified here.

Upper Phoinikoudi is a settlement on the southern slope of the hill in the north of the Sindili Plain. It is abandoned today. North of the acropolis, on the hill that juts into the plain, there are residential buildings facing south. There are cisterns and workshops in the settlement where street and garden boundaries are visible. A total of thirty-eight dwellings, seven cisterns and one workshop were identified here.

As a result of the surveys and measurements conducted in Lower and Upper Phoinikoudi settlements, it was found that there are similarities and differences between the structures. It was found that in the buildings constructed with masonry techniques, stone and brick were masoned with red earth mortar and core blocks were used for the walls. The buildings are largely similar in plan. The number of rooms in the single-storey houses with a front porch
varies from one to three (Figure: 3). The front porch, from which the rooms open, is a semi-open space surrounded by walls on three sides. This space is raised by steps and has the same floor level as the rooms.

It is thought that the wooden material of the beam nests was used as a support material in the upper cover and covered with earthen drips in some examples that have survived to the present day with intact walls. The houses have simple stone fireplaces and small wall niches. Material remains and oral interviews provide clues to the spatial correspondences of daily life in the settlements.

## KIRKMERMERLER

After the comprehensive documentation of Phoinikoudi, our focus of investigation shifted to Kırkmermerler to the west, across the Sindili Plain. In this context, we identified a rectangular structure 108 metres long and 7 metres wide, located at the eastern foot of the Kırkmermerler hill, adjacent to an ancient thoroughfare leading from the Acropolis in the north to the historic Serçe Liman (Portus Cressa) in the south. This structure, which is of scientific interest, consists of at least three different terrace levels (Figure: 4-6).

Our investigation revealed that the southern section of the eastern terrace wall has a construction method with bossage walls built of quadrangle blocks in an isodomic masonry arrangement. The northern section of the eastern terrace wall, on the other hand, clearly deviated from this construction method and had polygonal masonry.<fnref n="5" /> The complex itself contained various remains possibly from different periods, including remains of olive oil workshops, niches carved into the rock and reliefs with lion heads found on these terrace levels (Figure: 5). The collection of numerous roof tiles, especially from the southern terrace, complemented the ceramic collection and suggests that at least part of the complex was roofed at some point.

Given the complexity of the finds, the building presents an intriguing puzzle that we would like to decipher. Several hypotheses are proposed: The terraced structure may have served as an open-air sacred precinct in its early stages. The presence of niches carved into the rock at the back of the complex and the polygonal masonry speak in favour of this interpretation. It appears that the terraced structure was expanded during the early Hellenistic period (Figure: 6). The integration of lion's head reliefs into the bossage terrace walls, especially on the southern terrace, suggests the possibility of a roofed stoa. These developments indicate a shift in the purpose of the terraces, possibly coinciding with the prosperity of the site during its Hellenistic heyday. The presence of abundant Hellenistic pottery and the collection of roof tiles further support this assumption.

Based on the assemblage, it is conceivable that the building functioned as a public space similar to an agora in the Hellenistic era. Furthermore, the presence of African Red Slipped

<footnote n="5">5 Architectural drawings and digitalisation of the building was made by architecture intern Sude Nur Altındişoğlu.</footnote>
ware such as Hayes Form 67 and density of Late Roman C ware Hayes Form 3 indicates a
later reoccupation of the terraced enclosure in Late Antiquity, which points to a continuous
use beyond the Hellenistic phase.

GEDİK

During our extensive fieldwork in 2022, a remarkable archaeological find came to light: a complex and isolated architectural structure in the Gedik Valley, embedded in the southern extension of the settlement, more precisely, at the southern foot of Akgeri Hill. This building complex, distinguished by its dimensions of 41 metres long and 20 metres wide, is an important addition to the archaeological landscape of the region (Figure: 7).

Our comprehensive analysis of the excavation site revealed its intricate architectural features. The complex consists of two distinct structures: a U-shaped building facing north and an adjacent rectangular structure. The strategic positioning of these structures on a terrace, reinforced by a terrace wall, is a remarkable feature. The construction of the terrace wall is particularly interesting, demonstrating the isodomic technique, with a pronounced use of bossed masonry, which is clearly visible along the southern façade of the complex.

The prevailing scholarly discourse, influenced by earlier studies, has predominantly assigned the function of a farmstead to the building complex under investigation.<fnref n="6" /> However, our careful study and subsequent interpretations call into question the viability of this conventional view. The lack of convincing evidence for this farmstead hypothesis has led to a fundamental reassessment of the purpose of the complex. Several important factors underpin this reassessment, such as. The fact that the superior craftsmanship and architectural sophistication seen in the complex depart from the utilitarian attributes typically associated with a farmstead, the strategic proximity of the complex to the port of Gedik, possibly associated with the yet unidentified *Portus Gelos*, and its proximity to the port of Rhodes *Mandraki* across the sea, suggesting a more versatile role than that of a simple homestead. Its location on an ancient road leading from the south to the north suggests a larger functional area, which does not correspond to the localised function of a farmstead.

In view of these considerations, an alternative hypothesis emerges: the building complex could have fulfilled a public or sacred function. This new perspective, based on the cumulative archaeological evidence, envisages a function beyond that of a traditional farm. While further research is essential to definitively clarify the purpose of the complex, the findings from our investigations lead to a nuanced reinterpretation of its historical significance in the Gedik Valley and in the broader context of Phoenix's southern hinterland.

<footnote n="6">6 Demirciler, 2014, F.16, p. 75, pl. 59.</footnote>
DECENTRALIZED AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE SOUTHERN CHORA

The second part of the field survey was conducted in Çakallık Hill, Badrik, Namlıalan and Pırnal, which connect the Serçe Liman (Portus Cressa) with the centre of the Phoenix deme. In this part of the field studies, we were able to uncover elements of the agricultural organisation of the region such as pressing workshops, wineries, farmsteads, agricultural terraces and related spaces. In this area mentioned above, we recorded 17 different workshops in situ (Figure: 8). While the density of workshops in this area is striking, the relatively small number of identified farmsteads contrasts. The identification of farmsteads was significantly influenced by the presence of press stones, press beds and the proximity of cisterns or water sources, which were often adjacent to agricultural terraces or plains. These components played a crucial role in delineating agricultural production zones. The dense ceramic sherds we have collected from these units, such as mushroom amphorae, Rhodian canonical and Cnidian amphorae, indicate that production activities began as early as the 4th century BCE and continued during the Hellenistic period. The absence of pottery from the Roman Imperial Period supports earlier assessments of socio-economic deactivation in the Carian Chersonese during this period.<fnref n="7" /> But the farmsteads and workshops could be reactivated by the beginning of the 5th century CE. The strong presence of sherds of LRC Hayes Form 3, LRD Hayes Form 9 and from the workshops supports our hypothesis.<fnref n="8" />

Our investigation has revealed a clear pattern in the distribution of workshops and related units. Predominantly, these units were concentrated near the fertile Sindili Plain and the adjacent valleys, which are characterised by agricultural terraces with terra-rosa soils. This spatial arrangement was enclosed within a radius of about one mile from the centre of the deme. The 2022 fieldwork suggests that these units were closely connected and decentralised in Hellenistic Period, with their location suggesting a regional network. Nevertheless, determining the permanence or seasonal occupation of rural farmsteads remains a challenge that warrants further investigation.

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE CHORA

During our fieldwork in 2022, we also looked at the hydrological dynamics of Phoenix and Casara, highlighting the important role of water sources and cisterns in historic agricultural landscapes. Three dried—up streambeds - Kızlan in Gökseriç, Karabığüş in Lower Phoinikoudi and Karahorata in Gedik —are believed to have played a crucial role in agricultural productivity in Phoenix. Despite their condition today, they were once indispensable resources for farming and daily consumption. During our fieldwork, we discovered 29 cisterns in the archaeological landscape, some of which are still in use today. Only three are vaulted, while most, twenty-three, are carved into the bedrock and located near agricultural and arti-

<footnote n="7">7 Yaman et al. 2022, 185-202, Yaman 2022, 105-125; Yaman 2022, 113-128.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 For similar examples see Hayes 1972; Hayes 2008.</footnote>
sanal areas. These cisterns, up to 10-12 metres deep, conserved the water resources needed for irrigation and daily activities in the Sindili Plain (Figure: 9).

## EPIGRAPHY STUDIES

The 2022 season brought to light ten newly discovered inscriptions (plus two small fragments), most of them from the excavation of the temple-church at Kızlan Deresi. As described above, the church was built from reused stones from a sanctuary and elsewhere. The excavations revealed new gravestones that were integrated into this church, a statue base with a long text and other inscriptions that have yet to be deciphered. All of them probably date from the Hellenistic Period. One particularly well-preserved base with a circular cutting on the top bears the inscription “Damosthenes, son of Simylinos” (Δαμοσθένης Σιμυλίνου); it was uncovered near the apse of the church (see above, “Excavations at the Temple-Church”). In addition, a pillar with graffitied fragments of Christian prayers (PHX.22.249) was found in the nave of the church. In the abandoned village of Aşağı Fenaket, the survey team documented a house already known from previous publications to contain five ancient inscriptions as spolia: the “Yazıtlı Ev” (Inscription House). We were able to make squeezes, photographs, and measurements of these previously published texts. Two additional new inscriptions were discovered nearby.

A final epigraphic find of note is a well-preserved text that reads “Chryso for his father Pythippos” (Χρυσω ὑπέρ Πυθίππου τοῦ πατρός; PHX.22.370). This Hellenistic inscription is carved on a rectangular block and was reused on its side in a complex at Çakallık Tepesi. The formula is similar to examples from Rhodes. The Phoenix Epigraphy Project therefore continues to shed light on the individuals who lived in the area of Phoenix, as well as on how subsequent individuals, up to the present day, interact with and reuse these written remains of the past.

## MAPPING AND DOCUMENTATION

As part of the Phoenix Archaeological Project, 350 hectares of the site were documented through mapping, creation of point clouds and 3D modelling (Figure: 10). UAV photogrammetry was supported by terrestrial techniques to best describe the topography. Three drones (DJI Phantom 4 RTK, Mavic Air 2s, Phantom 4 Pro), one total station (Spectra Focus 6 2 sec.), two dual band GNSS receivers (Spectra SP60-SP80), one level (Leica NA720) was used in the execution of these studies. For mapping, we preferred the RTK drone. RTK drones offer higher accuracy and precision in mapping. This way we can survey larger areas in a shorter time. Six flights were carried out for the documentation.

Numerous ground control points (GCPs) were installed in the documentation area. These GCPs are used for georeferencing aerial photographs and are temporary tarpaulins that do not damage the terrain. The GCPs were measured with Spectra SP60-SP80 model GNSS receivers, 15 epochs, 2 times, 1 hour apart, using Real Time Kinematics (RTK) technique with
sub-cm sensitivity. The RTK technique works with at least two receivers. If you use one as a base station and the other as a rover, it provides sub-millimetre accuracy with instant corrections from the base station. The flight over a large area was carried out with a resolution of 3.98 px/cm GSD (Ground Sampling Distance). The Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) is the distance between two consecutive pixel centres measured on the ground. The high-resolution flight flies closer and has a resolution of 1 cm/px. Data such as orthophoto, 3D model, DEM and Dense Point Cloud were created from the flights. The aerial photos were proportionally overlaid, and a stereo model was created. The precision method was used to create 1/1000 scale topographic maps from the stereo models using 3D glasses. Coordinated data from all disciplines (geophysics, architecture, etc.) can be processed on the topographic map created. However, since we have extensive data from different disciplines and data input will be regular every year, the data must be collected and stored in a certain systematic way. To ensure this systematic way, we have created the GRID system and added this system to the GIS database. This GRID system covers the entire documentation area at 25 x 25 m intervals. Each cell is uniquely named in a specific order. The created GRID system can be used with GNSS receivers as a base Map: This way we can immediately know which cell we are in and store the data with the coordinates and the original name. This GRID system will offer us great convenience in archiving layered data in the years to come.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Hayes, J. W. (1972). *Late Roman Pottery*. The British School at Rome. London.

Hayes, J. W. (2008). *Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports*. The Athenian Agora, 32.

Yaman, A., Konuk, K., Doğan, T., Sitz, A., Yeşil, M., Alikaya, İ., Takı, D., Güçlü, A., Dinç, A., Okyay, Z., Özaydın, A., Konuk, T., & Aydemir, M S. (2022). Preliminary Report on the 2021 Fieldwork at Phoenix. *Anatolia Antiqua*, 30, 185-202.

Yaman, A. (2022a). *Fieldwork at Phoenix 2021. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı*, 38(1), 105-125.

Yaman, A. (2022b). Amos Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmalarında Ele Geçen Seramikler, *Olba* 30, 113-128.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Map 1: 1/1000 Topographical map of the 2022 fieldwork areas (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 1: Lower Phoinikoudi / Aşağı Fenaket (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 2: Upper Phoinikoudi / Yukarı Fenaket (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 3: Layout typology (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 4: Kırkmermerler (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 5: Rock-cut niches and the lion head relief of Kırkmermerler (PAP archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 6: Architectural plan and the east façade of the building (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 7: a public or sacred space in Gedik (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 8: Agricultural production units and related spaces discovered in 2022 (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 9: A rock-cut cistern in Gedik (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure: 10: 3D assembled High-Density Point Cloud Made in 2021 and 2022 (PAP Archive)</figcaption></figure>