13.07.2015 Views

11. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı

11. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı

11. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8.3m wide, abutting it to the south are the remains of a ruined apse. Tothe west of it on the highest point within the enelosure is a large structureo<strong>ve</strong>rgrown with dense <strong>ve</strong>getation, locally known as the havuz or opencistern. The outline of a multi-apsidal plan could be seen with rectangularbuildings to the west, these buildings had been eleared and inadequatelyplanned in 1988. it is hoped to carry out a detailed sur<strong>ve</strong>y of this structurein 1993.Apart from these structures the interior was empty of visible archaeologicalremains; roof tiles of varying fabric and colour represented theo<strong>ve</strong>rwhelming majority of surface finds, with only three pottery sherds.Recent cutting of open field drains across much of the interior of the sitehad re<strong>ve</strong>aled neither pottery nor structural remains. It is elear howe<strong>ve</strong>rthat there are extensi<strong>ve</strong> hillwash deposits on e<strong>ve</strong>n shallow slopes, so thatfurther remains could well be obscured especially around the north perimeter.An alternati<strong>ve</strong> explanation for the absence of surviving internalstructures could be the extensi<strong>ve</strong> use of timber buildings in what remainsa richly wooded landscape.Structurally the remains appear to belong to one major period, withadditional buildings constructed against the south and west walls. Exeludingthe central buildings (havuz), there are fi<strong>ve</strong> churches along thecurtain wall, with two other possible apsidal structures. At the gates andthe majority of towers it appears that religious architecture takes priorityo<strong>ve</strong>r the requirements of defence. The site is elearly not a Roman or IateRoman fort and the fort of Hyssos Liman may be better identified atAraklı Kalesi noted abo<strong>ve</strong> and within 2 km south-east of the site at Buzluca.Buzluca is unlikely to date before the sixth or se<strong>ve</strong>nth centuries ADand it has been suggested that the medieval and modem name of Herakleia/Araklı deri<strong>ve</strong>s from the campaigns of the emperor Heraelius inthe Pontos between 622 and 626 (Bryer and Winfield 1985:327). Thesole dating evidence from the site which has been studied so far is thesole surviving fragment of architectural decoration found elose to thesouth-east corner chapel-tower (Fig. 2). This is the fragment of a limestonerelief cross, probably part of a pilaster capitaL. The form of thecross with divided ends and deep drilling is unlike early Byzantine architecturalsculpture, and eloser affinities lie beyond Anatolia with theChristian architecture of the Caucasus and the Sassanian empire (MundellI977).The recent sur<strong>ve</strong>y has shown Buzluca to be an impressi<strong>ve</strong> singleperiod site elose to the castle and cape at Araklı Burnu. It is hoped that76

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!