Architectural Qualities Of Tumuli Built In Anatolia In 6th-5th Centuries Bc

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2016Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2016Çalışma kapsamında Anadolu’da M. Ö. 6.-5. yüzyıllarda inşa edilen tümülüslerin mimari içerikleri ve bu tümülüslerin inşa edildikleri dönemin genel mimari uygulamaları ile karşılaştırılmasına odaklanılmıştır. Çalışmanın ilk kısmında tümülüs geleneğinin kökeni ve uygulamaları incelenmiştir. Tümülüsler içerisinde basit çukurlar, sanduka mezarlar ve oda tipi mezarlar içeren sosyal ve politik ilişkileri sembolize eden yapay tepelerdir. Temsil ettikleri anlamlar bakımından dolmen, “kapalı yollar” (passage grave), menhirler ve seri menhirler gibi megalitik anıtlarla benzerlik göstermektedirler. Bu megalitik anıtlar Levant, Anadolu, Kafkasya, Batı Avrupa olmak üzere dünyanın bir çok bölgesinde görülmektedirler. Çalışmada Anadolu dışındaki erken dönem tümülüs uygulamalarından Tunç Çağı’na ait örnekler Arnavutluk, Epirus ve Apulia’daki (Güney İtalya) tümülüsler genel özellikleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Anadolu’da Frig, Lidya Krallık ve Greko Pers Dönemlerine ait tümülüsler incelenmiştir. Bu incelemenin amacı hem dönem içinde hem de dönemler arasında görülen ortak ve farklı özelliklerin tespit edilmesidir. Çalışmanın ikinci kısmında seçilen 18 tekil anıtsal tümülüsün özellikleri incelenemiştir. Bu tümülüsler Bintepe Nekropolü’nden Alyattes ve Karnıyarık Tepe; Sardes’ten “BK71.1”, “T77.1”, “T82.1”, “T.89.11”; Lidya’dan Aktepe; İyonya’dan Belevi ve “Kuştur”; Daskyleion’dan Tepecik, Yeniköy, Eşenköy, Koru, Koca Resul ve Kösemtuğ; Troas’tan Dedetepe, Çingene Tepe tümülüsleridir. Ayrıca Kolophon, Klazomenai, Pedasa ve Larisa (Buruncuk) kentlerinin nekropollerinde bulunan daha küçük boyutlu tümülüsler de genel özellikleriyle bu bölümde incelenmiştir. Tümülüslerin mimari bölümleri olan çevre duvarı, ön mekan, giriş önü, dromos, ön oda, mezar odası sınıflandırılmıştır. Bu bölümlerin inşasında karşılaşılan yapım tekniği, yüzey işçiliği ve kullanılan malzeme gibi mimari uygulamalar tespit edilmiş dönemin mimari uygulamaları ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın temel amacı tümülüslerin mimari özelliklerini anlamak ve vurgulamaktır. Tümülüs ölü gömme geleneği genellikle mimari tartışmalardan uzak “seçkin yeraltı yapılar topluluğu” olarak ele alınmaktadır. Tümülüslerin mimari özellikleri ile birlikte değerlendiren Ratté’in Sardes çalışmaları gibi sadece bir kaç çalışma bulunmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı aynı dönemde inşa edilen tümülüsler ve “yer üstü” yapılarında karşılaşılan benzer uygulamaların karşılaştırılması ile desteklenmektedir. Sonuç olarak mimari yapılarda ve tümülüslerde benzer mimari uygulamalar tespit edilmiştir. M. Ö. 6. ve 5. yüzyıllarda Batı Anadolu mimarisinin elitlerin mücadelesini temsil eden yüksek maliyetli uygulamaları arasında tümülüsler de yer edinmiştir.This study focuses on determination of architectural qualities of the tumuli which were built in 6th - 5th centuries BC in Anatolia, and on their comparison with concurrent general architectural practices. The first part of the study emphasizes the origins of tumulus building tradition and practices. Tumuli are artificial hills that contain simple pits, cists or room type graves whose constructions consisted of only soil, only stone or mix of soil and stone. Their different dimensions not only show a tradition with choice of the positions dominating the environment and different styles of burials but also symbolize social and political relations. In respect to meanings they represent, tumuli show similarities to megalithic monuments such as dolmens, passage grave, menhirs and serial menhirs. These monuments are seen in diverse parts of the world, especially in the Levant, Anatolia, Caucasia region and Western areas. Apart from megalithic monuments kurgan are also similar to tumuli. Within the scope of this study, only tumulus customs from Albania, Epirus and Apulia (South Italy) are exemplified in the introductory chapter. The reports of excavations of tumuli from Phrygian, Lydian and Graeco-Persian periods are examined and incorporated into the study with their general features. Phrygian tumuli which were built around Gordion after 750 BC, possess a wooden burial chamber. Burial chambers with stone masonry are to be found only in some few cases. A burial chamber is constructed by way of building a platform made of small stones and pebbly soil in the burial pit. Then, a layer of earth is formed on the burial chamber, and stones are accumulated on it. After these protection layers are provided, tumulus building is completed with hilling. Recent examples of these tumuli are documented in 525-500 BC when Phrygians came under Lydian domination. The tumuli of Lydian Kingdom (680-547 BC) are located in the “Royal Necropolis” of Sardeis. There are tumuli that were built under Persian rule of Sardeis that started in 546 BC., and their earliest examples are dated to the 7th century BC. These early Lydian tumuli are usually surrounded by ring-walls. There are different types of tumuli that have different plans including burial chamber, porch, forecourt or dromos. Protective lips at the walls and on the roof blocks are seen in this practice. Graeco-Persian tumuli (547/546-330 BC) were built in the regions that came under Persian domination. These are mostly to be found in Sardeis, Bintepeler, Alibeyli, Akhisar, Kırkağaç, Kütahya, Çanakkale, Denizli, Uşak and Trakya regions. General characteristics of Lydian tumuli continue to be seen at these examples. Practices of anathyrosis, kyma reversa and dressing of blocks with claw chisel started to be seen in this period. Blocks were connected together with double dovetail clamps. The protective lips that were seen in the Lydian period give way to painted friezes. The length of dromos increases while approaching the 5th century BC. Blocks of the dromos were dressed smoothly. The burials in the burial chambers are practiced on klinai. Tumuli which include only a sarcophagus, having no burial chamber are also dated to this period. The second part of the study contains common features of selected 18 singular monumental tumuli. These are from Sardeis, its royal necropolis of Bintepe, Daskyleion, other Lydian areas, Ionia and Troas. Available resources, available information and visual materials have played the basic part in the choice of these 18 tumuli. Tumuli that lack excavation reports and published articles are excluded. Architectural features and finds of Alyattes and Karnıyarık Tepe tumuli from Bintepe necropolis; “BK 71.1”, “T77.1”, “T82.1” and “T89.11” from Sardeis; Aktepe tumulus from Lydia; Belevi and “Kuştur” tumuli from Ionia; Tepecik, Yeniköy, Eşenköy, Koru, Koca Resul and Kösemtuğ tumuli from Daskyleion; Dardanos, Dedetepe, Çingene Tepe tumuli from the Troad have been studied chronologically. Tumuli of smaller size located in the necropoleis of Colophon, Clazomenae, Larisa and Pedasa have also been included. The excavations of most of them are still not accomplished. Diameters of the tumuli in urban necropoleis range roughly between 5 and 10 meters. Burials are usually made into cists or in simple buried pits. They are surrounded by ring-walls. Single standing tumuli i.e. which are not located in urban necropoleis reveal diameters larger than 25 meters. These have a burial chamber with dromos and are surrounded by a ring-wall. In Colophon, tumuli of Mycenaean period, Middle and Late Geometric periods, Archaic and Early Hellenistic periods are to be found. Clazomenae is one of the cities to have a long lasted tumulus custom. Tumuli in Clazomenae were built to surround the core settlement of the city. The diameters of these tumuli, which date from Archaic period, are between 35 and 45 meters. The tumuli with a cist inside are encompassed with ring-walls. Those which were built in the extremities of the city area have diameters of 5 and 10 meters. Besides the tumuli that were built in the Archaic period, there are also examples that are re-used in the Hellenistic period. Pedasa is a Lelegian settlement that consists of an acropolis surrounded by walls, necropoleis having different kinds of burials, and agricultural fields. Tumulus burial custom here is linked to the Lelegian culture. The tumuli with diameters less than 8 meters in Pedasa are dated to the period earlier than 6th century BC. The tumuli with diameters of 15-20 meters here are surrounded by ring-walls, and possess a burial chamber and a dromos. Pedasa tumuli were constructed of stones instead of soil. The roofs of the burial chambers reveal a pseudo-vault form obtained by corbelled technique. Because of the re-use they cannot be attributed to any specific period. Their first use is dated to the end of the second millennium BC. They were re-used in the timespan between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. There are also cases that were used in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The third part of the study displays the classification of architectural elements of tumuli including ring-wall, dromos, forecourt, porch, antechamber, door and burial chamber. From the selected 18 monumental tumuli, six have a ring-wall, 10 possess a dromos and 17 of them are furnished with a burial chamber. Further, a forecourt in one of the same selection, a porch inside two of them, an antechamber in five, and an anteroom of dromos in only one of them are identified. Ring-walls were built with skillful stonemasonry techniques in order to strengthen to accumulation of the soil to prevent slide and to add a monumental feature. They reflect the architectural practices of the periods they were built in. The common period features are the dressing of block surfaces, tool marks, joints between the adjacent blocks and the use of clamps. Limestone blocks, pieces of limestone and marble blocks were used as building material. The masonry of blocks that form the dromoi is mostly more roughly treated compared to the masonry of the ring-walls and burial chambers. Their walls were built of sandstone, conglomerate, schist, limestone and andesite blocks. The material used in the constructions shows a similarity to that of the burial chambers. There are samples with a flat roof that was made of blocks, in addition to the samples that were not covered and filled up with soil deliberately. The burial chambers which are the place where main burial is brought, were built of marble, limestone and/or andesite blocks. According to the architectural practice prevailed in the periods when they were built in, tool marks of point and claw chisels are to be seen. The surfaces of certain blocks were dressed with frames, while others reveal bossed surfaces. Especially the Lydian samples have the so-called “protective lips”. There are practices displaying anathyrosis between two adjacent blocks. Besides the double dovetail clamps, iron cramps were also used to connect the blocks. The covering forms vary as flat roof, corbelled roof, pseudo-vault, gabled roof and roofing built with diagonal cross-over corbelled technique. The chronological examination of the architectural qualities of 6th-5th centuries BC tumuli shows the use of clamps, claw chisel, door lintel properties, Aeolic and Lydian column capital representations at the klinai which are to be compared with civil and public constructions of the same periods. Earliest samples of the use of clamps are seen in Lydia in 600’s BC. The earliest sample of clamp use is inside Alyattes’ tumulus. Double dovetail clamps were used in Alyattes tumulus as well as in MMS/N area of the city gate and ByzFort terrace at Sardeis dated to the middle of the 6th century BC. After the middle of the 6th century BC, vertical members were added to the double dovetail clamps. This chronological transformation is observed in tumulus architecture as well. Another aspect of comparison is claw chisel marks that are observed on the block surfaces. The use of claw chisel in the art of sculpture in 580-570 BC, in architecture about 550 BC comes forward at the Belevi tumulus dated to the middle of the 6th century BC. Claw chisels were not used only in constructions during the Persian hegemony in Anatolia, but also in Persepolis and Susa. Ionian and Sardinian stonemasons who worked in the constructions of these building had influence on the use of claw chisel. Another issue, the practice of a door lintel with somewhat pointed ends is seen commonly in Persian constructions. It is a case also seen at the door lintel of Koca Resul tumulus. Structures having this kind of lintel are dated to the 5th and 6th centuries BC. Koca Resul tumulus, likewise, was built under the influence of Persian practices in the second half of the 5th century BC. Another comparison is related to the style of klinai and to the column capitals of Aeolic and Ionic orders. Aeolic and Ionic capitals which are depicted on painting or carving on kline legs present similarity to the examples carved in the same period. On kline legs, mostly Aeolic capitals are present. Sprouting of volutes, the eye of the volute at the center and the use of palmette between the volutes are very similar to the actual Aeolic capital carving of the period. An Ionic capital is shown only on the kline in the Dedetepe tumulus among klinai examined in this study. Style properties and colors used at this Ionic capital display for instance similarities to the painted Ionic capital found near the Athenian Agora and dated to the middle of the 5th century BC. The volute ornaments, concave volute canals, the polster and the use of palmette on kline legs are among similar details. This volute practice is also similar to the volutes that are seen at the corners of altars. The composition with volutes at the corners of Poseidon Altar in Monodendri (near Miletus) which is dated to the middle of the 6th century BC, is very similar to the corner volutes on the kline of Koca Resul tumulus. The primary aim of this study is to understand and emphasize the architectural qualities of the tumuli. This burial practice is mostly considered as an “underground constellation” and thus remain beyond architectural discussions –having only few studies otherwise like those of Ratté in Sardeis. This aim is supported by comparisons with “above ground” architectural practices of the same periods. As a result, indeed, many similarities between general architectural practice and certain details in the tumulus design can be shown. The high cost practices of western Anatolian architecture of 6th and 5th centuries BC representing the challenge of elites have also found their way into the tumulus architecture.Yüksek LisansM.Sc