日本人類学会進化人類学分科会

ニュースレター2021/06

目次

次回案内
第 46 回シンポジウム 予定2

令和 2 年度 開催シンポジウム
第 45 回シンポジウム “Turkey−Japan exchange 2020: featuring the paleoanthropologicalexcavations in Turkey and recent works from Japan”

3

Naoki MORIMOTO, Kyoto University, Japan
Recent work on anthropoid inner ear and our aims in Turkey

4

Wataru MORITA, National Museum of Nature and Science,Tokyo, JapanAn introduction to morphometric mapping: its application to hominoid molars

6İsmail ÖZER, Ankara University, Turkey
Preliminary results of the Middle Paleolithic excavation at Inkaya Cave,Çanakkale, Turkey

8İsmail BAYKARA, Gaziantep University, Turkey
Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic occupations atÜçağızlı I and Üçağızlı II Caves, Hatay, Turkey

11

Derya SİLİBOLATLAZ BAYKARA, Gaziantep University, Turkey
Zooarchaeological evaluations in Tatarlı Höyük during the Hellenistic Period13

表紙写真：トルコ共和国、チャナッカレ地方、インカヤ洞窟にて [写真撮影 森本直記]

1

次回シンポジウム
第 46 回シンポジウム 予定（第 75 回日本人類学会大会一般シンポジウムとの共催）「ミャンマーの後期中新世ホミノイド上腕骨化石の形態解析」

日時： 2021 年 10 月 10 日（日）午前
場所： Zoom によるオンライン開催（第 75 回日本人類学会大会内）
オーガナイザー： 高井 正成（京都大学霊長類研究所）
講演予定者:
高井 正成(京都大学霊長類研究所)
中務 真人(京都大学理学研究科)
江木 直子(国立科学博物館人類研究部)
河野 礼子(慶応義塾大学文学部)
概要
ミャンマー中部の後期中新世初頭の地層から見つかったホミノイドの上腕骨遠位端化石と近位端化石の形態解析を行った。特に大型の遠位端化石について、相同モデルを使用して行った現生大型類人猿との比較解析の結果を報告する。

＜分科会から次回シンポジウムに関しての連絡＞
コロナの影響により、昨年に引き続き、今年秋の第 75 回日本人類学会大会では分科会シンポジウムは募集されませんでしたが、一般シンポジウムを分科会シンポジウムと共催にすることは認められたため、上記の一般シンポジウムとの共催というかたちで第 46 回進化人類学分科会シンポジウムを予定しています。
このような形式になりますので、例年とは少し異なり、当日、リアルタイムでのシンポジウム参加は大会登録者に限られ、大会に参加しない分科会会員には、大会終了後、シンポジウムの講演部分のみを録画・編集したものを期間限定（1 週間）で公開することになる見込みです（公開についての詳細は後日連絡）。今回
は大会自体がオンライン開催であるため当日の参加登録はなく、リアルタイムでのシンポジウム参加をご希
望の方は、2021 年 9 月 13 日（月）17 時までに大会参加登録を済ませておく必要がありますので、ご注意ください（大会参加登録についての詳細は、第 75 回日本人類学会大会 HP を参照：
https://www.kuba.co.jp/anthropology75/）。なお、例年、人類学会大会での分科会シンポジウム終了後に分科会総会を開いていますが、現状を考慮し、大会終了後にメール総会というかたちにしたいと考えております。

2

第 45 回シンポジウム（共催:融合チーム研究プログラム[SPIRITS] 京都大学）“Turkey−Japan exchange 2020: featuring the paleoanthropological excavations in Turkey and recent works fromJapan”
2021 年 2 月 15 日 ZOOM によるオンライン開催

趣旨説明
トルコ共和国(アナトリア半島)では、ユーラシア最古級の化石類人猿からホモ・サピエンスまで幅広い年代をカバーする遺物が産出し、各地で精力的に発掘調査が行われている。京大隊は主に中新世類人猿と中期
更新世以降のホモ属をターゲットとして発掘調査を計画し、予備的な調査を開始していた。2020 年度にも、日本側研究者はトルコへ渡航しての予備調査への参加、また、トルコ側研究者を日本に招聘してのディ
スカッションを予定していた。しかし COVID-19 の影響のため、ともに実行できなかった。幸いにも、2020
年度もトルコ国内の発掘調査は実行されたため、その成果に加え日本側研究者の近年の研究成果を共有することで、今後の共同研究のさらなる発展の礎としたいと考えた。本シンポジウムでは、トルコ側からは特に旧石器時代の遺跡の発掘調査の成果を報告してもらう。オンライン開催の利点を生かし、トルコ国内の人類学的研究の最新情報を広く共有する機会としたい。

プログラム(日本時間)
16:00-16:20 Opening Remarks/Recent work on anthropoid inner ear and our aims in Turkey
Naoki MORIMOTO (Kyoto University)
16:20-16:40 An introduction to morphometric mapping: its application to hominoid molars
Wataru MORITA (National Museum of Nature and Science,Tokyo)
16:40-17:00 Preliminary results of the Middle Paleolithic excavation at Inkaya Cave, Çanakkale, Turkeyİsmail ÖZER (Ankara University)
17:00-17:10 Coffee break
17:10-17:30 Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Üçağızlı I andÜçağızlı II caves, Hatay, Turkeyİsmail BAYKARA (Gaziantep University)
17:30-17:50 Zooarchaeological evaluations in Tatarlı Höyük during the Hellenistic Period Derya
SİLİBOLATLAZ BAYKARA (Gaziantep University)
17:50-18:00 Comment (including QA)
Masato NAKATSUKASA (Kyoto University)3

Recent work on anthropoid inner ear and our aims in Turkey
Naoki Morimoto
Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University

BackgroundDue to the outbreak of COVID-19, face-toface academic collaboration could not be carried out
in 2020. This symposium, “Turkey−Japan exchange
2020”, was planned to bridge the gap between Japanese and Turkish teams. While the fieldwork waslargely limited for Japanese researchers, Turkish
teams still managed to conduct the research in Turkey in the 2020 season.
Anatolia covers a wide range of fossil records of apes and humans, and it is a crossroad of Eur-

Fig. 1asia and Africa. Anatolia is thus of particular rele-

hominins) and Turkey. Findings from Turkey will be ofvance for studying human evolution and history. One

special relevance for interpreting the variation and disper-of the hot topics of biological anthropology in recent

sal patterns of archaic Homo populations

Findings of archaic Homo (Middle Pleistocene

years is the finding of Denisovans (Reich et al.,2010), which rewrote the family tree of humans. Alt-

could be divided into two taxa; H. rhodesiensis andhough we know Denisovans currently only as a ge-

H. heidelbergensis, for African and European find-netic entity, the finding of Denisovans made ques-ings, respectively (Buck and Stringer, 2014;

tions on human evolution even more interesting:

Rightmire, 1998). In the latter classification, H.

What did the LCA (last common ancestor) of modern

rhodesiensis is viewed as the ancestor of modern hu-

humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans look like?

mans, while H. heidelbergensis is viewed as a com-

Where did the LCA evolve? How did the human pop-

mon ancestor of Denisovans and Neanderthals. In

ulations interact with each other? The fossil evidence

addition to the taxonomic question, the origin of thefrom Middle and Late Pleistocene (MP and LP) is

last common ancestor of modern humans, Neander-

essential to answer these questions. For example, I

thals, and Denisovans is also an important question.

and coauthors recently showed that the bony labyrin-

While African origin hypothesis is regarded as athine morphology shows a pattern of chronologicalmore parsimonious hypothesis, Eurasian or perhaps

sequence of hominin evolution that could be associ-Afro-Eurasian origins cannot be excluded. The pau-atedcity of the MP hominin fossils, especially from well-withcranialand/orbrain

morphology(Morimoto et al., 2020).

dated sites, is a major obstacle to answer these questions. Finding from Anatolia, which is located geo-

Middle Pleistocene

graphically in the middle of Africa and Eurasia, will

The Middle Pleistocene hominins arethus be essential to interpret the variation in MP

known from Africa and Eurasia and are often re-hominins (Fig. 1). Furthermore, Anatolia is also cru-

ferred to as archaic Homo. While MP hominins arecial in the archeological context, e.g., about the dis-

sometimes lumped as H. heidelbergensis, they

persal of Acheulian technology (Jöris, 2014). Since4Anatolia could have been a dispersal route already ofJöris O. 2014. Early Palaeolithic Europe. In: Ren-

Homo erectus (Kappelman et al., 2008), Anatolia has

frew C, and Bahn P, editors. The Cambridgea great potential to contribute to our understanding

World Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-of human evolution during MP.

versity Press. p 1703-1746.
Kadowaki S, Omori T, and Nishiaki Y. 2015. Varia-

Late Pleistocene

bility in Early Ahmarian lithic technology and its

The data about evolutionary events during

implications for the model of a Levantine origin

LP are ever-increasing in various contexts. Theof the Protoaurignacian. Journal of Human Evo-

growing data of paleogenomics now give us a com-lution 82:67-87.

plex history of genetic interaction between the hu-

Kappelman J, Alçiçek MC, Kazancı N, Schultz M,

man populations during LP (Lalueza-Fox and P.

Özkul M, and Şen Ş. 2008. First Homo erectus

Gilbert, 2011). The interbreeding of modern humans

from Turkey and implications for migrations intoand Neanderthals was also inferred from morpholog-

temperate Eurasia. American Journal of Physicalical data (e.g., a recent report of tooth morphology in

Anthropology 135(1):110-116.

Compton et al., 2021). New lithic findings in the Le-

Lalueza-Fox C, and P. Gilbert MT. 2011. Paleoge-

vant coupled with recent advances in dating methods

nomics of archaic hominins. Current Biology

contribute to a debate on dispersal patterns of the ad-21(24):R1002-R1009.

vanced lithic technology (e.g., Kadowaki et al.,Mellars P. 2006. Archeology and the dispersal of

2015; Mellars, 2006). As in MP, Anatolia has a great

modern humans in Europe: Deconstructing thepotential to combine lithic and skeletal morphologi-“Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology: Is-

cal data in understanding the dispersal from and into

sues, News, and Reviews 15(5):167-182.

Africa and about between-population interactions ofMorimoto N, Kunimatsu Y, Nakatsukasa M, Ponce

modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. A

de León MS, Zollikofer CPE, Ishida H, Sasaki T,

final piece to the picture would be the ancient DNA.

and Suwa G. 2020. Variation of bony labyrin-

Potential integration of the ancient DNA could givethine morphology in Mio−Plio−Pleistocene andfurther insights into the evolution of lithic and skel-

modern anthropoids. American Journal of Physi-etal features in LP Homo.

cal Anthropology 173(2):276-292.
Reich D, Green RE, Kircher M, Krause J, Patterson

References

N, Durand EY, Viola B, Briggs AW, Stenzel U,

Buck LT, and Stringer CB. 2014. Homo heidelber-Johnson PLF et al. . 2010. Genetic history of angensis. Curr Biol 24(6):R214-215.

archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in

Compton T, Skinner MM, Humphrey L, Pope M,

Siberia. Nature 468(7327):1053-1060.

Bates M, Davies TW, Parfitt SA, Plummer WP,

Rightmire GP. 1998. Human evolution in the Middle

Scott B, Shaw A et al. . 2021. The morphology ofPleistocene: The role of Homo heidelbergensis.

the Late Pleistocene hominin remains from the

Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, andsite of La Cotte de St Brelade, Jersey (Channel

Reviews 6(6):218-227.

Islands).

Journalof

Human

Evolution

152:102939.

5

An introduction to morphometric mapping: its application to hominoid molars
Wataru Morita
Department of Anthropology,National Museum of Nature and Science

Morphometric mapping

Physical space

Teeth often constitute a major part of fossil
and archaeological human skeletal collections since
the tooth crown is covered by enamel which is theParameterizereflect phylogeny and functional or dietary adapta-yxzData mining
1. Machine learning
2. Phylogenetic signaltion(Hunter and Jernvall, 1995; Jernvall and Thesleff,

radius}have teeth, and their morphologies are distinct and

Map spacecurvature

hardest substance in the body. Almost all vertebrates

heightvertex normal↓ FFT ↓

2012). The recent development of µCT and recon-

Fourier space
Low-pass filter

struction of 3D model techniques allow us to visual-PC spaceize inner structure and provide a more precise assessment of tooth morphology(Macchiarelli et al., 2006).
However, there has been a methodological limitation
about how to evaluate dental morphology. For exam-

Fig. 1 Outline of procedures for morphometric mappingple, scoring certain dental characters cannot neces-with data mining

sarily cover entire crown features. Conventional
quantitative methodologies such as linear measure-

Metameric variation and dental reduction in ge-

ment of crown or cusp diameter are not adequate tonus Homo

evaluate the complex dental morphology. Geometric

Recently, we analyzed the metameric vari-morphometrics is a powerful tool to quantify mor-

ation of upper molars in extant hominoids using mor-

phological structures. But it requires homology ofphometric mapping(Morita et al., 2020). Metamericdental characters between the specimens, and it is notvariation is, so-called inter-molar variation, and thenecessarily the case. To overcome these obstacles,

way of shape-changing from mesial first molar to

we developed a landmark-free approach, morpho-

distal third molar can be different between species.

metric mapping. This method was first devised to an-

Results show that all the extant hominoids share aalyze long bone shaft(Morimoto et al., 2011;

common degradation pattern from mesial to distal at

Zollikofer and Ponce de León, 2001), and modified

a single molar level and inter-molar level. Humans

it to fit tooth crown morphology(Morita et al., 2016).

show the typical shape change of hypocone reduc-The 3D models are parameterized with several mor-tion. We suppose that this is caused by the spatiotem-

phometric variables: surface curvature, height, ra-poral factor, such as lack of space to form the fourth

dius, and vertex normal that represents the direction

cusp in a jaw or no time left during odontogenesis.

of the minimal area as a unit vector in three dimen-

In the evolutional context, this tendency ofsions. Each map is converted with Fourier transfor-

dental reduction in human lineage became apparent

mation for low-pass filtering and finally analyzed byafter the first out of Africa by genus Homo aroundmultivariate analysis, such as Principal Component

two million years ago(Martinón-Torres et al., 2007).

Analysis (PCA) (Fig. 1).

Anatolia is the best place to explore evolutionary
6change in genus Homo since it is the crossroad be-Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., Özer, I., Yılmaz,

tween Africa and Eurasia and between West and East

H., Baykara, I., Açıkkol, A., Goldberg, P., Molina,

Eurasia. Arguably, it would be the center of their

K.M., Ünay, E., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The

habitat. Any findings in the Middle to Late Pleisto-

early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Üçağızlı

cene from Anatolia will be of great relevance for the

Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal of Human

evolutionary change of hominin teeth.

Evolution 56, 87-113.
Macchiarelli, R., Bondioli, L., Debenath, A.,

Data mining for taxonomic identification and

Mazurier, A., Tournepiche, J.F., Birch, W., Dean,

phylogenetic analysis

M.C., 2006. How Neanderthal molar teeth grew.

Figure 1 visualizes the outline of morpho-

Nature 444, 748-751.

metric mapping, including two data mining strate-

Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,

gies: the first one is machine learning; the second

Gómez-Robles, A., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E.,

data mining criterion is based on the phylogenetic

Lordkipanidze, D., Manzi, G., Margvelashvili,

signal. The former method would be quite useful inA., 2007. Dental evidence on the hominin

the context of paleoanthropology. For example, ap-

dispersals during the Pleistocene. Proceedings ofpropriate variables to classify Neanderthals andthe National Academy of Sciences of the Unitedmodern humans can be selected by machine learning

States of America 104, 13279-13282.

from reference samples, and we can verify the be-

Morimoto, N., Ponce de Leon, M.S., Zollikofer, C.P.,

longing of target fossils. Several sites belong to the2011. Exploring femoral diaphyseal shapetransitional period between Neanderthals and mod-variation in wild and captive chimpanzees by

ern humans in Turkey(Baykara et al., 2015; Kuhn etmeans of morphometric mapping: a test ofal., 2009). The taxonomic identification of hominin

Wolff's law. Anatomical Record 294, 589-609.

teeth would fulfill a central role in understanding theMorita, W., Morimoto, N., Kono, R.T., Suwa, G.,early history of modern human dispersal.

2020. Metameric variation of upper molars inhominoids

and

its

implications

for

the

References

diversification of molar morphogenesis. Journal

Baykara, İ., Mentzer, S.M., Stiner, M.C., Asmerom,of Human Evolution 138, 102706.

Y., Güleç, E.S., Kuhn, S.L., 2015. The Middle

Morita, W., Morimoto, N., Ohshima, H., 2016.

Paleolithic occupations of Üçağızlı II Cave

Exploring metameric variation in human molars:(Hatay,anda morphological study using morphometricofmapping. Journal of Anatomy 229, 343-355.

Turkey):archeological

Geoarcheologicalperspectives.

JournalArchaeological Science: Reports 4, 409-426.
Hunter, J.P., Jernvall, J., 1995. The hypocone as akeyinnovation

inmammalian

Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M.S., 2001. Computer-assisted morphometry of hominoid fossils:

evolution.

the role of morphometric maps, in: Koufos, G.D.,

Proceedings of the National Academy of

Bonis, L.d., Andrews, P. (Eds.), Hominoid Evo-

Sciences 92, 10718-10722.

lution and Climatic Change in Europe: Phylog-

Jernvall, J., Thesleff, I., 2012. Tooth shape formation

eny of the Neogene Hominoid Primates of Eura-and tooth renewal: evolving with the same

sia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.

signals. Development 139, 3487-3497.

50-59.

7

Preliminary results of the Middle Paleolithic excavation at Inkaya Cave, Çanakkale, Turkeyİsmail ÖzerDepartment of Anthropology, Faculty of Languages, History and Geography,
Ankara University
Background

was preferred by Paleolithic people during the gla-

Systematic research on Paleolithic archeol-cial periods due to its proximity to hot springs. We

ogy in Turkey began in the nineteen fifties. Many

discovered almost all localities in these places during

Paleolithic sites were discovered in the following

surveys. Most of these workshops area or open air

years. Excavations in some of these localities havesites are dated to the Middle Paleolithic Period.

been initiated (such as Yarımburgaz, Merdivenli,

However, the sites of the Lower, Upper, and Meso-

Tıkalı and İncili Caves) and continue (Karain,lithic periods were also identified.

Üçağızlı, Kızılin and Direkli Caves). Paleolithic localities are generally located in the south of Anatoliaİnkaya Excavationin Turkey. But there are very few studies in the West-During the 2016 survey, a cave was foundern Anatolia. To discover the Pleistocene period hu-

in the Çan district located in the Asian part of Çanak-

man activities in Western Anatolia, we started sur-kale. The Inkaya cave is 55 km away from Çanakkale

veys in Muğla and Çanakkale provinces in 2012. At

city center and Aegean Sea, and its height above sea

the same time, fossils of the Miocene period werelevel is 235 m. (Fig. 1) (Özer et al. 2020a; Özer et al.

also investigated in this research. Many Turkish and2020b). Inkaya Cave contains thousands of lithic ar-

Japanese researchers took part in the survey and ex-

tifacts that are the remains of human settlements incavation research. Although we found many Mio-the Paleolithic. In 2017, under the presidency of thecene localities in our surveys in Muğla Province be-

Troy Museum, we started excavations in İnkaya

tween 2012 to 2013, unfortunately we could not findCave. The excavations have been going on for four

any remains regarding the Pleistocene period inyears. Test pits were dug in the north, east, south,Muğla survey.

west and inside in the cave (Fig. 2). All remains arerecorded according to the GIS coordinate system.

Muğla and Çanakkale Survey

The rhythm of human activities prevails in the upperÇanakkale survey research was started thepart of the Inkaya stratigraphic sedimentology. Layerfollowing year and conducted between 2014 to 2019.

A contains the dust layer on the surface soil and isÇanakkale is a very rich place in terms of the Pleis-

completely eroded in some areas. The primary geo-

tocene period. During the survey, 60 Paleolithic lo-

genic component throughout the sequence is the red-

calities were found in Çanakkale. All localities aredish tone under this layer. Layer B is approximately

founded on areas with flintstone raw material re-

sixty to eighty cm. Layer C is isolated in terms ofsources. 38 of the localities are in Çan District. Çan

culture finds and contains iron oxide. The lowest

stone, a kind of flint, consists of rhyolitic tuffs, whichlayer is the tuff layer accumulated as a result of vol-are pyroclastic products of Oligocene volcanic ofcanism in the Miocene period and it is also bedrock

Biga Peninsula, which have widespread outcropsof the cave. According to the OSL dating results, thearound Çan-Etili. This region is very rich in hot wa-

sediments in the north gave the date of approxi-

ter resources in Çanakkale, which also shows that it

mately 22580 ± 2850 years. It is estimated that the8region from which a dating sample was taken mix-

stone tools mainly consist of flakes and blades. The

ture over time. It is planned to take a dating sample

majority of flakes have flat platforms and predomi-

from other parts of the cave next year.

nantly parallel dorsal scars. Blades, which constituteInkaya Cave lithic assemblages have been evaluatedthe second artifacts group of the industry, include flat

technologically and typologically. The classification

profile, feathered terminations, linear platforms, pre-of retouched tools is defined according to Bordes

dominantly parallel dorsal scars with parallel remov-(1961) and Hours (1974). The raw material used inals. Single platform cores with parallel removals andthe cave is flint. All of the chipped stones were madesub-prismatic blade cores are majority of the core as-of local Miocene-aged flint. Although thousands ofsemblages in the cave. The limited number of Leval-flintstone tools were found during the excavations,lois pieces within the community shows that theno organic material has yet been found. A total of

Middle Paleolithic period took place in this area.

3644 chipped stones have been identified in the ex-

However, a detailed analysis of all these chipped

cavations in the İnkaya Cave. Inkaya Cave chippedstones has not been completed yet.

Fig. 1 Çanakkale Province and location of İnkaya Cave9connection and genetic relation during this period. At
the same time, our knowledge of the spread of modern humans around the world changes every day due
to discovery. Of these studies in Turkey, will makenew contributions to world science is clear. With thepossible discovery of fossil human remains in İnkaya,
we will be able to understand which human species
used this area.
References
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancientet moyen, CNRS, Paris.
Hours, F. 1974. Remarques sur l’utilisation de listestypes pour létude de Paléolithique supérieur et del’Epipaléolithique du Levant, Paléorient, 2: 3–18.
Özer İ, Sağır, M, Baykara, İ., Özer, BK, Dinçer, B,
Morimoto, N, Morita, W, Şahin, S, Eren, E, Gülhan, Ö, and Özdemir, A, 2020a. 2017 ve 2018
yılı Muğla ve Çanakkale illeri yüzey araştırması,
37. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2: 355-373(in Turkish).
Fig. 2 North part of excavation areaÖzer İ, Atmaca, A, Sağır, M, Baykara, İ., Dinçer, B,Özer, BK, Şahin, S, Tükel, M, Eren, E, Gülhan,
Ö, and Özdemir, A, 2020b. 2018 yılı İnkaya

We know that due to the effects of climatic fluctua-

Kazısı, 41. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2: 603-618

tions in the late Pleistocene, Neanderthals spread(in Turkish).

over a wide area from Europe to the Middle East. It
is known that Anatolia and the Balkans had a land

10Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic occupations at Üçağızlı II and Üçağızlı II Caves, Hatay,
Turkeyİsmail Baykara
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Science and Letters,
Archaeology department, Şehitkamil, Gaziantep
The Hatay Province is located at south ofat some time and intact sediments in the site is small,

Turkey and the northern end of the Levantine coastal

but density of materials is very high. The six strat-

corridor. Project in Hatay is important to our under-

igraphic sequence in the Üçağızlı II is dominated bystanding of the Levantine Middle and Early Upper

human activities within the cave. Uranium series

Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mousterian indates provide rough chronological constraints for theTurkey and potential exchanges of populations be-occupations of Üçağızlı II. Uranium samples were

tween Anatolia and the Levant during the late Pleis-

collected from a flowstone formed directly on top

tocene (Kuhn et al., 2009; Mentzer, 2011; Baykara et

and bottom of rock along the eastern wall of the col-al., 2015). We have already known several caves

lapsed chamber A. The upper layers were dated toaround in this shoreline but only six of them, Kanal,

75,287 +/− 461 and bottom layers dated to 42,091

Merdivenli, Tıkalı, Üçağızlı I, Üçağızlı II, and+/− 1689 years BP (Mentzer, 2011). The faunal ma-Üçağızlı III Caves, including Palaeolithic assem-

terials recovered from the 2005 and 2007 excava-

blages. First studied in Hatay province started

tions were analysed by M. Stiner. The major species

around middle of the 1950, in Samandağ, Çevlik area

identified in the Üçağızlı II ungulate assemblage in-(Fig. 1). Researcher from Ankara University exca-

clude Mesopotamian fallow deer, wild goat, pig, redvated three Palaeolithic sites in Çevlik area; Tıkalı

deer, roe deer and wild cattle. Tool marks indicate

and Merdivenli Caves belong to the Middle Palaeo-that all species were consumed or butchered by thelithic, while Kanal Cave is related with the Early Up-site occupants. Stiner found that small game types inper Palaeolithic. After this research, researchers wereÜçağızlı II were limited to shellfish and tortoises,

focusing in the other side of the Samandağ shoreline,with only rare use of small mammals. At least,

Meydan village area around the end of the 1980s. A

21,000 lithic artifacts were collected from excava-

Frenchexcavatedtion at Üçağızlı II. Almost all artifacts recoveredÜçağızlı I Cave in two field seasons (Kuhn et al.,were manufactured from flint. The stone artifacts in2009). After that Üçağızlı I excavation started againÜçağızlı II are all dominantly Mousterian in charac-

beginning of 2000 by E. Güleç from Ankara Univer-ter and resemble the “Tabun C type” Levantine

sity, Mary. C. Stiner and S. Kuhn from Arizona Uni-

Mousterian assemblages (Baykara et al., 2015).

researcher, A.M.

Deroche,versity. Üçağızlı I cave excavation is still ongoingand new systematically excavation has been begin-Üçağızlı I Cave layers typically containning in Üçağızlı II by İ. Baykara from Gaziantep

stone tools, bone or antler implements, shell orna-

University in 2020.

ments, food debris in the forms of broken bones,
hearth features, and ash concentrations. The UpperÜçağızlı II Cave contains an exclusively

Palaeolithic deposits in Üçağızlı Cave signify thericher Middle Palaeolithic level. The site is collapsed

temporal interval between 41,000 and 29,000
11uncalibrated radiocarbon years BP. The faunas areSavaş-Güleç E., Kuhn S.L. (2015). The Middle

dominated by ungulate remains, which expresses to

Paleolithic Occupations of Üçağızlı II Caveseasonal large game hunting. The site is home to two(Hatay, Turkey): Geoarcheological And Archeo-

major cultural assemblages. The earliest layers datelogical Perspectives. Journal of Archaeologicalfrom the Early Upper Palaeolithic period (Initial Up-

Science: Reports, 4:409-426.

per Paleolithic), while the second closely resembles

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C., Güleç E., Özer İ., Yılmaz H.,

the Ahmarian complex found in the Levant (Kuhn etBaykara İ., Açıkkol-Yıldırım A., Goldberg P.,

al., 2009).

Martınez M.K., Engin Ü., Suata-Alpaslan F.

These projects are supported by Republic(2009).

The Early Upper Paleolithic Occupa-of Turkey-Ministry of Culture and Tourism and Ga-

tions at Üçağızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal

ziantep University. Special thanks to Erksin Güleç,of Human Evolution, 87(56): 87-113.

Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner for their endlesscontributions.

Mentzer S.M. (2011) Macro- and micro-Scale Geoarchaeology of Üçağızlı Caves I and II, Hatay,
Turkey. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Ar-

References

izona.

Baykara İ., Mentzer S.M. Stiner M.C., Asmerom Y.,

Fig. 1 Hatay province includes several caves in its coastal area. Those caves are dated to Late Pleistocene in Samandağ
district, such as Meydan area on the right, Çevlik area on the left right side of the figure12Zooarchaeological evaluations in Tatarlı Höyük during the Hellenistic Period
Derya Silibolatlaz-Baykara,
Gaziantep University, Institute for Migration, Gaziantep.
K. Serdar Girginer,Çukurova University, Faculty Science and Letters, Archaeology Dpt., Adana
Tatarlı Höyük is located on the Ceyhan plain ofindicates that the building had a sacred character andAdana, one of the strategic positions of Cilicia which

it was an open-air sanctuary during the early Lateconnects coastal and northern Syrian and Levantine

Bronze Age. There is also evidence of various defen-routes to inner central Anatolia. Cilicia played a very

sive systems.

important role in the history of civilizations, with its
extensive arable lands and its position as a bridge be-

A large number of bones and bone fragments

tween Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Eastern Med-

were recovered from Hellenistic periods. It is seeniterranean, connecting these areas by land, sea andthat fauna is dominated by domestic animals: sheep,

rivers. On the fertile plain of Ceyhan, Tatarlı Höyük

goat, cattle and pig. Wild taxa also exist including

rises as a 37 m mound that extends 370 x 230 m on

many species like deer, red foxes and hyena thougha basalt outcrop and the largest ancient settlement inin low numbers. Very few bones with any sign ofthis area. To the north of the mound was a swamp

butchery marks were identified in the assemblage.

and round its base are seven springs, so the area is

Very low percentage of assemblage exhibited evi-well-watered. Seven fresh springs were the result ofdence of being exposed to heat to some degree. It

geologic formations. Due to this geological for-would indicate that burning was not a significant at-

mation, there are many water springs around thetritional agent. Cut marks were also observed in very

Höyük and this area is one of the biggest water ba-

low numbers. The available skeletal elements are

sins in the Eastern Cilicia. Based on informationgrouped by skeletal regions and is presented in thegathered from Hittite documents as well as topo-

graph. All the skeletal elements were represented atgraphical, archaeological, and philological evidence,the different ratio. The evaluation of age distribution

Tatarlı Höyük has been proposed as the ancient site

based on eruption and wear of mandibular teeth

Lawazantiya. Today, the mound is regarded as one ofdemonstrates an emphasis on the culling of adult-old

the most likely locations of Lawazantiya.

animals which exceeded their optimal meat size than
the young individuals. The slaughtering of young

The excavations in Tatarlı have brought tolambs less than six months of age is postulated as alight many rooms of Building A located in Sector I,

result of milk exploitation, while the considerable

in the eastern area of the Citadel (Fig. 1). This im-

number of sheep between six months till the second

portant building was established in the Middle

year of age suggests the exploitation of these animals

Bronze Age and was used throughout various phases

for meat. The use of these animals to provide milk orof the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. It is clear

wool, after they exceeded their optimal meat age.

that the building was altered and repaired at many

During the Hellenistic Period, it is thought thattimes; and some rooms were filled in or converted to

Höyük was located in the hinterland of a rich work-

rubbish pits in the Hellenistic period. The evidence

shop production center of the ancient city of13

Kastabala-Hierapolis. The most important industrial

for traction and secondary products. It is able toproduction was in textile. Many loom weights aredemonstrate that pigs were raised freely in the for-found in the archaeological evidence of textile pro-ested area around Tatarlı Höyük and that young pigs

duction. Thus, it is not wrong to say that wool is pri-were slaughtered regularly. Horses are evidence ofmary production from sheep and goats.

trade, and the cut marks on their bones indicate thathorses were occasionally part of inhabitants’ diet.

As a result, the animal bones of the Tatarlı

According to archaeological findings, Tatarlı Höyük

Höyük in the Hellenistic Period showed that domes-

had always been a sacred site from 2nd millennium

tic animals had an active role in economy. It is un-

BC, through Iron Age and Hellenistic Period. It is be-derstood that sheep and goats are mainly used to ob-lieved that some animals like dogs, red fox, and deertain secondary products such as wool and milk pro-were sacrificed to the cult of Zeus Olybris.

duction. It has been understood that cattle were used

Fig. 1 Aerial view of the citadel (Girginer – Collon, 2014, 62)14

分科会事務局
京都大学大学院理学研究科自然人類学研究室内〒606-8502 京都市左京区北白川追分町
電話:075-753-4083
ファックス:075-753-4083
e-mail: evo_anth AT anthro.zool.kyoto-u.ac.jp
http://anthro.zool.kyoto-u.ac.jp/evo_anth/evo_anth.html＜新規会員募集中＞

進化人類学分科会では随時新会員を受け入れています。会員の方々におかれましては、お近くに進化
人類学に興味をお持ちの方がいらっしゃったら、進化人類学分科会をご紹介くださると幸いです（特に若手の方々に）。さまざまな分野の方に参加していただくため、入会資格として日本人類学会の会員であること は 問 い ま せ ん 。 入 会 手 続 き に つ い て は 、 進 化 人 類 学 分 科 会 HP （ http://anthro.zool.kyotou.ac.jp/evo_anth/evo_anth.html）をご参照ください。

15