KAZISONUÇLARITOPLANTISI

T.C.

33.27. ARKEOMETR‹SONUÇLARITOPLANTISI

T.C.KÜLTÜR VE TURİZM BAKANLIĞI

Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü

23-28 MAYIS 2011MALATYA

27.ARKEOMETRİ SONUÇLARI

TOPLANTISI

Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayın No: 154

YAYINA HAZIRLAYANLARDr. Haydar DÖNMEZÖmer ÖTGÜN

Kapak ve UygulamaYusuf KOŞAR

ISSN: 1017-7671

Kapak Fotoğrafı: İsmail ÖZER “Eski Ahlat Şehri Kazısı İskeletlerinin Paleoantropolojik Analizi”

Not : Arkeometri raporları, dil ve yazım açısından Klâsik Filolog Dr. Haydar Dönmez tarafından denetlenmiştir. Yayımlanan yazıların içeriğinden yazarları sorumludur.

İsmail Aygül Ofset MatbaacılıkSan. Tic. Ltd. Şti.ANKARA-2012

İÇİNDEKİLER

Fadime SUATA ALPASLAN Anadolu Erken Pliyosen Küçük Memeli Topluluğu: Paleontolojik ve Paleoekolojik Anlamları .......................................................................................1

Hadi ÖZBAL, Ayla TÜRKEKUL-BIYIK, Laurens THISSEN,Turhan DOĞAN, Fokke GERRITSEN, Rana ÖZBAL M.Ö. 7. Binyılda Barcın Höyük’te Süt Tüketimi Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar ...........15

A. Beril TUĞRUL Bazı Pirinç Eserlerin Radyografi Tekniği İle İncelenmesi .....................................33

Ergun KAPTAN Kestel’den Önemli Bir Buluntu ...........................................................................45

Cevat BAŞARAN, Emine KOÇAK, H. Ertuğ ERGÜRERHasan KASAPOĞLU Parion Nekropolü’nde Bulunan Bronz Amphoranın Konservasyonu ve Restorasyonu ....................................................................................................55

Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL, Nihan SEZGİN HOŞKAN, Fatma Banu UÇAR ÇAKAN,Sait BAŞARAN, Gülnur KURAP Enez (Ainos) Antik Kenti Suterazisi Bölgesi 2010 Arkeojeofizik Çalışmaları ........73

Ali Akın AKYOL, Yusuf Kağan KADIOĞLU, Nakış KARAMAĞARALI Ahlat Çifte Hamam Malzemeleri Üzerinde Arkeometrik Ön Çalışmalar ...............91

Domenico MIRIELLO, Andrea BLOISE, Gino M. CRISCI, Carmine APOLLAROLuca CARACCIOLO, Antonio LA MARCA Archaeometric Analysis of Archaeological Mortars and Plasters From Kyme (Turkey) ........................................................................................113

Mehmet Şafi YILDIZ, Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL, Şevket DÖNMEZ Amasya Terziköy Roma Hamamı Arkeojeofizik Çalışmaları ..............................121

Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL, Nihan SEZGİN HOŞKAN, Mehmet Şafi YILDIZZeynep MERCANGÖZ Kuşadası-Kadıkalesi (Anaia) Arkeojeofizik Çalışmaları 2010 ............................139

Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL, Gülgün KÖROĞLU Sinop Balatlar Kilisesi 2010 Arkeojeofizik Çalışmaları ......................................153

Vedat ONAR, Hasan ALPAK, Gülsün PAZVANT Altan ARMUTAK,Zeynep KIZILTAN Yenikapı Bizans Atlarında Gözlenen Patolojiler ................................................167

Özlem SURUL, A.Cem ERKMAN, Metin TÜRKTÜZÜN Yarenkür ALKAN,Seçil SAĞIR, Özcan ŞİMŞEK Çiledir Höyük ve Tokul Köyü Şapel Kazısı İskeletlerinin Paleoantropolojik Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi ....................................................179

Antonio LA MARCA Kyme 2010: Şehir ve Yayılım Alanı, Yeni Topoğrafik Veriler .............................191

İsmail ÖZER, Mehmet SAĞIR Eski Ahlat Şehri Kazısı İskeletlerinin Paleoantropolojik Analizi .........................209

Andrea M. PÜLZ, Birgit BÜHLER, Feride KAT Efes’in Bizans Dönemi Giysi ve Takı Objeleri ...................................................221

Daniş BAYKAN Nif (Olympos) Dağı Kazısı Metal Buluntularının Tipolojik ve Analojik Değerlendirmesi .............................................................................................231

Emre KURUÇAYIRLI Akdeniz’in Kuzeydoğu Kıyısında M.Ö. İkinci Binyıl Bakır Metalürjisi .................247

Joseph W. LEHNER Boğazköy Metal Buluntularının Mikroyapısı ve Mikroanalizi Hakkındaki Ön Rapor ........................................................................................................261

İçten TANSEL, Zeynep KALAYLIOĞLU, Şahinde DEMİRCİ Gerçek ve Sahte Sikkelerin Arkeometrik Yöntemler Kullanılarak Ayrılması ve Gruplandırılması ..........................................................................277

M. WAELKENS, B. MUŠIČ, M CORREMANS, P. DEGRYSE, V. De LAET, J. BAKKER,B. DUSAR, K. D’HAEN, B. NOTEBAERT, G. VERSTRAETEN , E. MARINOVAW. VAN NEER, Q. GOFFETTE, B. DE CUPERE, J. BAETEN and D. DEVOS The 2010 Archaeometric Research At Sagalassos ............................................305

Derya ATAMTÜRK, İzzet DUYAR, Fatih GÜLŞEN Tlos İskeletlerinin Antropolojik Analizi ............................................................331

Cenk GÜNER, İzzet DUYAR, Derya ATAMTÜRKVugar ALİYEV Resuloğlu İnsan İskeletlerinin Kimyasal Analizi ................................................347

Zehtiye FÜSUN YAŞAR, Serpil ÖZDEMİR, Alper YENER YAVUZAyla SEVİM EROL Eski Anadolu Toplumlarında Gömülü Dişler .....................................................363

Alper Yener YAVUZ, Zehtiye Füsun YAŞAR, Serpil ÖZDEMİRAyla SEVİM EROL, Türkay DEVRENT Hasankeyf Neolitik Dönem İnsanlarında Çene Kırığı ........................................381

Justin LEIDWANGER, Harun ÖZDAŞ, Elizabeth S. GREENE Sourcing the Cargos of Three Archaic Shipwrecks: Kekova Adası, Kepçe Burnu and Çaycağız Koyu ...............................................393

Evangelia IOANNIDOU – PİŞKİN, Derya BAYKARA Zooarchaeoogical Studies at Burgaz: A Preliminary Report ..............................411

113

ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSIS OFARCHAEOLOGICAL MORTARS AND PLASTERS

FROM KYME (TURKEY)Domenico MIRIELLO*

Andrea BLOISE Gino M. CRISCI

Carmine APOLLARO Luca CARACCIOLOAntonio LA MARCA

Introduction

Mortars and plasters, which are mixtures obtained by mixing a binder, water and sand in suitable proportions are used to bond diverse types of stone materials or bricks in ancient and modern masonry1. Because they are artificial materials, mortars have diverse compositional and material characteristics, as a result of different construction needs and the technological knowledge of the workers who produced them. Recent reports have shown that mortars

* Domenico MIRIELLO: assistant professor of Analytical methods applied to stone materials to the course of Science and Techniques for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage at the University of Calabria (Italy), tel. +39 0984 493575; miriello@unical.it.

Andrea BLOISE: assistant professor of mineralogy to the course of Earth Sciences at the University of Calabria (Italy), tel. +39 0984 493588; andrea.bloise@unical.it.

Gino M. CRISCI: full professor of Petrography to the course of Earth Sciences at the University of Calabria (Italy), tel. +39 0984 493637; crisci@unical.it.

Carmine APOLLARO: assistant professor of Geochemistry to the course of Earth Sciences at the University of Calabria (Italy), tel. +39 0984 493586; apollaro@unical.it.

Luca CARACCIOLO: postdoc at the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Calabria (Italy), tel. +39 0984 493550; luca.caracciolo@unical.it.

Antonio LA MARCA: prof. of Archaeology and History of the Greek and Roman Art at the Department of Archaeology and History of Arts, University of Calabria (Italy) , tel +39 0984 494308; a.lamarca@unical.it

1 UNI, 2001. Cultural heritage. Mortars for building and decorative elements. Classification and terminology (N. 10924). UNI, Milano.

114

are excellent sources for identifying the provenance of materials used in historical edifices and for information on the construction history of specific monuments2.

Mortars in particular have always attracted the attention of many scientists. The historical and archaeological importance of mortar can only be understood if we consider some of the most important monuments in the world, such as the Colosseum, the Great Wall of China, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or great cities of antiquity like Troy, Mycenae and Rome. Without mortar, it is probable that neither the Colosseum or many of the splendid Pre-Aztec cities of Mexico could have lasted until now3.

This lecture summarizes the results of archaeometric analysis performed of Roman, proto Byzantine and Medieval mortars, sampled in the archaeological site of Kyme (Turkey), an Aeolian city, founded in the middle of the XI century BC by Greek populations. The present study, which is part of a wider project, aims to supply the first compositional data on the mortars of the archaeological area of Kyme, and to highlight the chemical, petrographic and mineralogical differences between the Roman, Proto-Byzantine and Medieval mortars. Some of these results have been recently published by our scientific team4.

Sampling and analytical techniques

One plaster and eight mortars were sampled from the archaeological area of Kyme (Fig. 1) and they were marked with the following abbreviations: M1, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8 and Kmo.

2 Miriello D., Barca D., Bloise A., Ciarallo A., Crisci G. M., De Rose F., Gattuso C., Gazineo F., La Russa M. F., Characterisation of archaeological mortars from Pompeii (Campania, Italy) and identification of construction phases by compositional data analysis,. “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 2010, Vol. 37, 2207-2223.

Miriello D., Barca D., Crisci G. M., Barba L., Blancas J., Ortiz A., Pecci A., López L., Characterization and provenance of lime plasters from the templo Mayor of tenochtitlan (Mexico City). “Archaeometry”, 2011, Vol. in press, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754. 2011.00603.x.

3 Miriello D., Bloise A., Crisci G. M., Barrese E., Apollaro C., effects of milling: a possible factor influencing the durability of historical mortars. aarchaeometry, 2010, Vol. 52, 668-679.

4 Miriello D., Bloise A., Crisci G. M., Apollaro C., La Marca A., Characterisation of archaeological mortars and plasters from Kyme (turkey), in “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 2011, n. 38, 794-804.

115

The samples were studied in thin section by polarised light microscopy with a Zeiss petrographic microscope, and analysed by XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) on pressed pellets to determine the chemical composition of major elements, on a Bruker S8 Tiger WD X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. The binder (size<1/16 mm) of the samples, volcanic aggregates and lime lumps were also analysed on polished thin sections to determine major chemical composition by SEM-EDS microanalysis on a FEI Quanta 200 instrument, equipped with an EDAX Si (Li detector). To better point out the similarities and the geochemical differences of the binder of the mortars, we calculated the hydraulicity index (H.I.) in agreement with Boynton5. The mineralogical composition of the samples was studied using a Bruker D8 Advance XRD Diffractometer operating at 40 kV and 40 mA, Cu Kα radiation monochromated with a graphite sample monochromator. Scans were collected on powder samples in the range 3 – 60° 2θ using a step interval of 0.02° 2θ, with a step-counting time of 3 seconds. A semi-quantitative estimate of the aggregate/binder ratio and macroporosity was obtained by comparing the thin sections observed by optical microscopy with charts to aid visual estimation of modal proportions of minerals in rocks6. The calcium carbonate content was determined by De Astis calcimeter.

Summary of the results

- M1 and M6 are chemically and petrographically similar. The historical attribution of sample M6, belonging to the Roman-Imperial period, allows us to locate sample M1 to the same period. As regards the mortars sampled on the proto-Byzantine floor, M2 and M5 samples, are both cocciopesto mortars. They are compositionally similar, while sample M4, another mortar sampled from the proto-Byzantine floor, has no cocciopesto (Fig. 2).

5 Bonyton R.S., 1966. Chemistry and technology of lime and limestone. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

6 Ricci Lucchi F., 1980, Sedimentologia parte I: Materiali e tessiture dei sedimenti, Clueb, Bologna; Myron Best G., 2003. Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology, 2nd edn., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

116

- Another important result concerns M3 sample. Among all the mortars, M3 (sampled on the wall of the Medieval castle) is definitely the sample with the worst technological features. As a matter of fact, the sample, which is particularly friable, is made of a mixture of clay, lime and aggregate; thus denoting a loss of technological knowledge compared to the mortars prepared in previous historical periods.

- Marble powder artificially added to the mixture was found in sample Kmo (Fig. 3). This procedure was particularly appreciated by Roman workers, who wanted the plaster to have a marble brightness7.

- As concerns provenance studies, heulandite and echinoid spine traces found in some sample, may be used in the future to determine the provenance of the aggregate.

- It is useful to point out how, among the Roman mortars in Kyme, the use of natural pozzolanas can be excluded. As a matter of fact, the Romans used to abundantly use “pozzolanas” in mixtures mainly in bedding mortars. This practice could be justified by the difficulty of finding “natural pozzolanas” in the area, rather than cocciopesto. This hypothesis, however, needs to be verified in future studies mainly focusing on the provenance of raw materials used to prepare mortars.

- Moreover, Romans in Kyme used inert material coming from old constructions, as an aggregate in the new mortarsas suggested by the occurrence of recycled mortar fragments in sample M8 (Fig. 4).

- Concerning lime typology, the analysis on binder pointed out that natural slaked lime was used in Kyme, but, to increase mortars performance, the lime was made hydraulic by adding cocciopesto to the mixture.

- Thanks to the present study, the first compositional data concerning the mortars in the archaeological area of Kyme were produced. The compositional

7 M. Vitruvius Pollio, de architectura, (1990. trans. L. Bigotto). Ed. Studio Tesi, Pordenone, book VII, Chapter III, 317-323.

117

data we have so far obtained may be used to reproduce highly compatible mortars to be used in future restorations.

For a more extensive discussion of the scientific data we refer to Miriello et al. 20118.

8 Miriello D., Bloise A., Crisci G. M., Apollaro C. , La Marca A., Characterisation of archaeological mortars and plasters from Kyme (turkey), Journal of Archaeological Science, 2011, n. 38, 794-804.

118

Fig. 1: Sampling of the mortars -by Miriello et al. 2011 modified- : a) Sample M1 on random stone - “ unknown historical period “; b) Sample M2 on Proto Byzantine floor “V-VII century AD”; c) Sample M3 on the wall of the Medieval castle “ XII-XIII century AD; d) Sample M4 on Proto Byzantine floor “V-VII century AD”; e) Sample M5 on Proto Byzantine floor “V-VII century AD”; f) Sample M6 on the floor of the theatre orchestra “Roman-Imperial period”; g) Sample M7 under the marble slab on balteus in the theatre “Roman-Imperial period”; h) Sample M8 under the marble slab on balteus in the theatre “Roman-Imperial period”; i) Sample Kmo is a plaster of the house in the Roman residential block (South hill) “Roman-Imperial period”.

119

Fig. 2: Comparison between flatbed scanner images of mortars under crossed polars -by Miriello et al 2011 modified- a) Sample M1; b) Sample M2; c) Sample M5, d) Sample M6; e) Sample M7; f) Sample M8; g) Sample M3; h) Sample M4; i) Sample Kmo.

120

Fig. 3: Marble powder fragment in the sample Kmo (by Miriello et al., 2011 modified).

Fig. 4: Reused mortar fragment in the sample sample M8 (by Miriello et al., 2011).