ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA

OCNUS

Quaderni della Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici

17

2009

ESTRATTO

Direttore ResponsabileSandro De Maria

Comitato ScientificoSandro De MariaRaffaella Farioli CampanatiRichard HodgesSergio PernigottiGiuseppe SassatelliStephan Steingräber

CoordinamentoMaria Teresa GuaitoliSimone Rambaldi

Editore e abbonamentiAnte Quem soc. coop.Via C. Ranzani 13/3, 40127 Bologna tel. e fax + 39 051 4211109www.antequem.it

RedazioneValentina Gabusi

Traduzione degli abstractsMarco Podini

Abbonamento€ 40,00

Richiesta di cambiDipartimento di ArcheologiaPiazza San Giovanni in Monte 2, 40124 Bolognatel. +39 051 2097700; fax +39 051 2097701

Le sigle utilizzate per i titoli dei periodici sono quelle indicatenella «Archäologische Bibliografie» edita a curadel Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.

Autorizzazione tribunale di Bologna n. 6803 del 17.4.1988

Senza adeguata autorizzazione scritta, è vietata la riproduzionedella presente opera e di ogni sua parte, anche parziale, con qualsiasimezzo effettuata, compresa la fotocopia, anche ad uso interno o didattico.

ISSN 1122-6315ISBN 978-88-7849-038-3© 2009 Ante Quem soc. coop.

5

INDICE

Presentazionedi Sandro De Maria 9

ARTICOLI

Preistoria e protostoria

Lorenc BejkoLife and Death in the periphery of the Mycenaean world: cultural processes in the Albanian late Bronze Age 11

Nicola Bianca FábryLo scarabeo della tomba 7 di Monterenzio Vecchio e le parures d’ambra delle necropoli etrusco-celtiche della valle dell’Idice 23

Andrea GaucciCoppa da una tomba villanoviana di Vetulonia: fenicia o siriana? 29

Franco Marzatico, Lorenza EndrizziUn nuovo cinturone villanoviano dai Campi Neri di Cles (Trentino) 45

Culture della Grecia e di Roma

Cornelia Isler-KerényiAntefisse sileniche fra Grecia e Italia 55

Archeologia tardoantica e medievale

Andrea Augenti, Andrea Fiorini, Massimiliano Montanari, Massimo Sericola, Alberto Urcia, Fabio ZaffagniniArcheologia dell’architettura in Emilia-Romagna: primi passi verso un progetto organico 65

Maria Teresa Guaitoli, Andrea Baroncioni, Massimo ZanfiniLo scavo della chiesa di Santa Maria Maggiore a Trento 77

Archeologia orientale

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca VittuariAn Integrated Approach for the Use of GPS and GPR in Archaeological Sites: a Case-Study at Tilmen Höyük in South-Eastern Turkey 89

Gian Luca Bonora, Zholdasbek KurmankulovNomadi e agricoltori nel delta del Syrdarya (Kazakhstan) fra l’età del Bronzo e l’antica età del Ferro 101

Angelo Di MicheleL’architettura sacra nella Siria dell’età del Bronzo Antico 119

ARTICOLI-RECENSIONE

Lorenzo ManciniRituale e strutturazione del paesaggio sacro negli Asklepieia della Grecia 133

Luisa Mazzeo SaracinoLo studio della ceramica archeologica e il manuale tecnico di Ninina Cuomo di Caprio 138

Simone RambaldiQualche riflessione sulle mostre archeologiche degli ultimi anni in Italia 142

SCAVI DELLA SCUOLA E DEL DIPARTIMENTO DI ARCHEOLOGIA

Introduzionedi Sandro De Maria 149

ItaliaAlbinia (Grosseto)Claudio Calastri, Daniele Vitali 151

Casacalenda (Campobasso)Lorenzo Quilici 153

Classe (Ravenna), suburbioGiuseppe Lepore, Giovanna Montevecchi 155

Corinaldo (Ancona), Chiesa di Santa Maria in PortunoGiuseppe Lepore 158

Emilia-Romagna, scavi di archeologia medievaleAndrea Augenti, Mila Bondi, Enrico Cirelli, Nicola Mancassola, Giorgia Musina, Enrico Ravaioli 162

Ercolano (Napoli)Antonella Coralini, Daniela Scagliarini Corlàita 180

Fondi e Itri (Latina)Lorenzo Quilici 182

Galeata (Forlì-Cesena), Villa di TeodericoRiccardo Villicich, Marialetizia Carra 184

Ocnus 17, 2009

6

Marzabotto (Bologna)Elisabetta Govi 189

Monterenzio Vecchio (Bologna)Lisa Guerra, Thierry Lejars, Vanessa Poli, Barbara Vaccari, Daniele Vitali 192

Ostia (Roma)Massimiliano David, Angelo Pellegrino, con la collaborazione di Giacomo Orofino e Marcello Turci 198

Ostra (Ancona)Michele Silani, Cristian Tassinari 203

Povegliano (Verona)Nicola Bianca Fábry, Dániel Szabó 206

Roma, S. Paolo alla RegolaLorenzo Quilici 209

Suasa (Ancona)Marco Destro, Enrico Giorgi 210

Sutri (Viterbo)Lorenzo Quilici 219

Valle del Sinni (Matera e Potenza)Lorenzo Quilici 220

AlbaniaPhoinikeSandro De Maria 221

CroaziaBurnumEnrico Giorgi 226

EgittoBakchias (Fayyum)Sergio Pernigotti 231

FranciaBibracteEnrica Camurri, Rosa Roncador 234

GreciaGortyna (Creta)Isabella Baldini Lippolis 239

KosIsabella Baldini Lippolis 241

Indice

7

SiriaBosraRaffaella Farioli Campanati 244

UzbekistanSamarcanda Amreddin Berdimuradov, Rita Dimartino, Dario Giorgetti, Simone Mantellini 246

Ocnus 17, 2009

8

1. Introduction

In contemporary archaeological explorationsmultidisciplinary strategies are frequently pur-sued, although with varying degrees of successand often at the expense of internal coherence.The present paper stresses the need for a focus ongeo-diagnostics from an integrated archaeologi-cal, topographical and geophysical approach.

The Tilmen Höyük Archaeological Project isa joint Turco-Italian one: five campaigns havebeen carried out at this Bronze Age site in south-eastern Turkey between 2003 and 2007 (fig. 1),with a combined approach to excavation, restora-tion, landscape studies, site management andpresentation activities for public awareness. Inthe Fall of 2007 the Archaeological andEnvironmental Park of Tilmen Höyük was offi-cially opened. While emphasis has been placedalso on cultural and environmental characteriza-tion, we rely on a series of assumptions based onpresent scientific knowledge. Hereby follow thetwo main ones – for initially characterizing andthen successfully exploring and presenting anurban site: 1) accurate topographic survey, cou-pled with aerial photography, close-range pho-togrammetry, high precision geodetic referenc-

ing and an historical approach to the study ofarchitectural evidence, are fundamental tasks,leading to and accompanying large excavationareas; 2) extensive geophysical surveying is nei-ther ancillary nor preliminary to archaeologicalexcavations, but rather parallel to it, projectingthe scattered fragments of a past situation to alarger scale layout.

(N.M.)

2. Ancient Urban Planning at Tilmen Höyükduring the Middle Bronze Age

The study of ancient urbanism is not just amatter concerning typologies of buildings or adescription of the spatial organization of a givensettlement: determining functional differences ofspace use, identifying space hierachies and socialclusters, reconstructing self-representational ide-ology as reflected in the shaping of settlementsare, on the contrary, the end goals for archaeolog-ical enquiries on urbanism1. This problem may

Ocnus 17, 2009, pp. 89-100

1 On the social use of space, see Chermayeff, Alexander1963; Hillier, Hanson 1984; Kent 1990; Nettinget

89

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR THE USE OF GPS AND GPR INARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A CASE-STUDY AT TILMEN HÖYÜK IN SOUTH-EASTERN TURKEY

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, LucaVittuari

Argomento del presente lavoro è la presentazione di un protocollo integrato efficace per caratterizzare le proprietà siapedologiche, sia archeologiche (che siano coerentemente integrate in una strategia di scavo e in una rete geodetica), qualeè stato sperimentato sullo scavo di un sito del Bronzo Medio in Turchia sud-orientale, a Tilmen Höyük. L’utilizzo delGround Penetrating Radar (GPR) per ottenere informazioni sulle proprietà del sottosuolo è diventata una pratica digrande interesse in campo archeologico. Il Georadar può essere affiancato da tecniche di Global Positioning Systems(GPS) per l’analisi e l’integrazione dei dati. L’utilizzo combinato di queste tecniche permette una campagna diprospezioni geofisiche più dettagliata, che include informazioni diverse e dettagliate in un unico sistema georeferenzi-ato. Gli obiettivi di questa ricerca sono quindi stati di: (a) identificare evidenze archeologiche subsuperficiali, carat-teri idrologici e pedologici utilizzando il GPR accoppiato ad un sistema GPS di alta precisione, (b) implementare unaprocedura per l’integrazione dei dati ottenuti in un sistema informativo geografico e (c) creare un modello tridimen-sionale del sottosuolo basato sulle informazioni ottenute con il GPR. I risultati ottenuti hanno permesso di creare unmodello del sottosuolo georeferenziato che permetta di interpretare la struttura del sito antico, non solo dal punto divista archeologico, ma anche idrologico e pedologico.

Ocnus 17, 2009

90

Fig

. 1. T

opog

raph

ic m

ap o

f Til

men

Höy

ük: M

BA

stru

ctur

es w

ith

thic

kene

d sk

ylin

es; m

onum

ents

surv

eyed

onl

y by

Alk

ım’s

Exp

edit

ion

in li

ghte

r gr

ey. S

ecto

rs in

colo

r ar

e tho

se co

vere

d by

the g

eo-

phys

ic s

urve

y (d

esig

nate

d by

let

ters

in

min

uscu

le).

be approached from several points of view: forinstance, horizontal excavation exposures (andthe consequent study of the eco- and artifactsretrieved) are an effective mean to that aim2,but they must be coupled with a detailed analy-sis of the written sources3, where available, andhigh precision topographic researches (see § 3),set within a landscape perspective (see e.g.Wilkinson 1990).

The results of surface research on archaeo-logical sites must be, generally speaking, eval-uated carefully: the results of superficial scrap-ing at Çatal Höyük, for example, supplied anapparently regular architectural layout, which,when excavated, was found to represent severaldifferent chronological phases (Matthews1996). Same or similar manual operations insouthern Iraq, however, gave more coherentresults at Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1994) and atMashkan Shapir (Stone, Zimansky 2004). Themost extensive evidence has been obtainedthrough geophysic surveys at sites such asKusaklı and Kerkenes Dag in Turkey (datingrespectively to the Late Bronze and the IronAges, see Müller-Karpe 2007; Stümpel, Erkul2006; Summers, Summers 2006; 2008): allthese sites have a limited settlement history inmost areas, as it is the case at Tilmen.

At Tilmen, the excavations revealed thelayout of a Middle Bronze II (hereafter MB II)capital, 5.5 hectares large, from c. the 18th-17th centuries BC (fig. 1). The lower town hascasemate fortifications and could be enteredthrough a main city gate (K-1), besides twosmall posterns (K-2 and K-3): a sacred area(M), set on a higher ridge along a street com-ing from postern K-3, was seemingly connect-ed to the public area on the acropolis by meansof a wide roadway. Only the western lowertown had actually a significant extension, theother parts of it being only represented by nar-row strips between the city walls and theacropolis. The acropolis, fortified on threesides by casemates and fortresses, was accessedthrough a monumental stairway (K-5), fromwhere – after passing by a large residency – anoblique road led to the public area along thesouthern side of the mound to the south,where some roads met at acute angles . Thepublic compound was the most notable urbanfeature of the town, being made by threemajor buildings (E, A, H), the combined rec-tilinear southern façade of which stretches for75 m, with a presumable original height of atleast 12 m, bust most probably significantlymore (fig. 2)4.

(N.M.)

3. The use of GPS for georeferencing purpo-ses and site surveying

3.1. Absolute Georeferencing

While for the simple surveying purposesrequired by traditional presentations a localreference system may be sufficient, to preparea multifaceted management plan we had toembed in a single coherent reference frame all

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca Vittuari

4 For excavation reports see Marchetti 2006; 2006b;2008a; 2008b; 2008c; on the survey methods seeCerasetti et alii 2008. A Turkish expedition firstworked at the site between 1959 and 1972 (Alkım1969; Duru 2003). The constructional features of thepublic compound were, on a less grandiose scale,usual at the site during the MB II phase: the monu-mental buildings which have been explored in detailhad in fact vertical outer façades reaching the foot ofthe acropolis (residency K-5 and fortress Q) or of theglacis around the lower town (fortress P).

et alii 1984; Parker Pearson, Richards 1994; Stark1998; Tonkiss 1998.

2 This can be achieved through the study of differenti-ated distribution patterns of material culture assem-blages within contexts. The context is the fundamen-tal unity for recovering meaningful informationabout the interconnections existing in the Pastbetween fixed and mobile artifacts, the relationshipsbetween different sets of man-made evidence(Appadurai 1986).

3 See for example Mayer 2003: 238-239 n. 2 s.v. ribītufor the existence of the ribītu, the main street of OldBabylonian towns on which abutted the main build-ings of the town. An excellent, though unfortunate-ly rare, case offered by textual studies is representedby Harris 1975. Written texts must also, though ofcourse not exclusively, be set within their retrievalcontext: however, the extraordinary potentialitiesoffered by the ancient Near East – in which an abun-dant textual documentation has been often found insitu – have not too often been exploited in detail: forexample, when extensive excavations were carriedout, such as for late Neo Babylonian levels inBabylon (Koldewey 1925), contextual informationwas mostly lacking and the archives are only recent-ly being studied (Baker 2008).

91

/

Ocnus 17, 2009

92

Fig

. 2. O

rtho

phot

o of

Til

men

Höy

ük (

take

n in

Aug

ust 2

008;

the 2

nd m

ille

nniu

m B

C ex

cava

ted

mon

umen

ts a

nd th

e vis

itor

s pat

hs o

f the

arc

haeo

logi

cal a

nd en

viro

nmen

tal p

ark

are w

ell v

isib

le).

the survey works, carried out at differenttimes and scales within the Tilmen archaeo-logical site complex. This task required ashared absolute geodetic reference system(Bitelli et alii 2006b) that may guarantee max-imum flexibility to integrate a wide array ofdata coming from different prospection tech-niques on one side and to consolidate them forfuture projections to the higher dimensions ofregional studies, that require the incorporationof all landscape data in their historical projec-tion (Bitelli 2008). In particular at Tilmen thebasic operational platform was the integrationof high precision Global Positioning System,Ground Penetrating Radar and total stationsurveys, to aggregate the separate layers oflandscape aspects and artefacts in a mostdetailed contextual definition (Leick 2004;Wiseman, El-Baz 2007).

Measurements at Tilmen were carried outin 2005 by using Global Positioning Systemwith dual frequency “geodetic class” instru-ments and suitable processing software. TheWGS84 (ITRF2000) geographical coordi-nates of a master station, named ST01, were

determined by means of very long measure-ment sessions (GPS static method) to the mostadjacent GPS permanent stations belongingto the scientific network of the InternationalGeodetic Service (IGS), while for the reduc-tion of the ellipsoidal height to the orthomet-ric value the EGM96 global geoid undulationmodel was applied (Vittuari 2008).

The master station was placed on the high-est spot of the site, while some other second-ary stations were measured during the cam-paign by rapid-static method in order toestablish a network of points coherently sur-veyed and useful as reference for topographicalsurveys made by means of total stations dur-ing the excavations. Final overall elaborationwas performed in post-processing, using mostaccurate ephemeris data (fig. 3).

3.2. Digital Terrain Model Determination

The elaboration of an accurate DigitalTerrain Model (DTM) for the area is essentialfor a large number of applications in archaeol-ogy (in the context of this work, only the inte-

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca Vittuari

93

Fig. 3. Continuous tracks and stations determined by GPS measurements using static, rapid-static and kinematic techniques at Tilmen.

gration with geophysical prospecting isreviewed).

Several geomatic techniques are nowadaysavailable for DTM and DSM (Digital SurfaceModel) determination, starting from classicaltopographical surveying to spatial geodesy,from Photogrammetry to Laserscanning, andhave been largely applied by the Authors atdifferent sites (e.g. Bitelli et alii 2006a). ForTilmen, a combined total station – GPS acqui-sition was chosen, both for the accuracyrequirements and for logistic constraints.

Regarding the classical topographicalmeasurements, several points have been sur-veyed inside the site by radial measurements,performed with a total station placed at thestations mentioned in § 3.1. The samplingprocess was adapted to the local morphologicalcharacteristics, with a total amount of about3500 acquired points.

To integrate these data, a kinematic GPSsurvey was carried out (fig. 3), with a lot ofwalking in and around the site using twoinstruments (single and dual frequency), witha third instrument simultaneously acquiringat the master station; the precision of theresults, considering the intrinsic reliability ofthe method and the running positioning of the

antennas, can be estimated in the order of a fewcentimetres. Of course, GPS calculated posi-tions have been referred to the orthometricheights as described in § 3.1.

Starting from these data, several numericalmodels of the terrain were calculated using thegeostatistic kriging approach, with differentcell sizes starting from 1 m. In fig. 4 an exam-ple is shown, with cell size of one meter andshaded relief representation.

3.3. GPR prospecting georeferentiation

Accurate GPS surveys were also applied forgeoreferencing the transects performed forgeophysical prospecting. In this case doublekinematic determination of the stakes wasapplied, surveying the same stake twice, dur-ing different walks, and evaluating the accura-cy by the two calculated coordinates sets(heights referred to the m.s.l.). The results ofthis assessment guaranteed that accuracy andprecision were in optimal agreement with therequirements (at centimetre level in relativeand a few centimetres in absolute).

(G.B., L.V.)

4. The use of GPR for soil and archaeologicalsurveys5

4.1. GPR Survey

A detailed GPR campaign was performed atthe site using two types of instrumentation: aGSSI (Geophysical Survey System Inc., USA)SIR-3000 with an antenna operating at 200MHz and a RAMAC (Ramac Inc., Sweden)with an antenna operating at 250 MHz.

The measurements were performed overgrids of 0.5 x 0.5 meters, with meanderingacquisition in both North-South and East-Westdirections, georeferenced by means of the GPSsurvey described in § 3.3. Various areas have

Ocnus 17, 2009

5 M. Posselt and S. Pfnorr (Frankfurt) carried out ageophysic survey in 2005 at Tilmen in parallel withthat of M. Bittelli, the two teams having exchangedtheir data. GPR Process is a software developed byLawrence B. Conyers and Jeffrey Lucius, specificallydesigned for archaeological applications of the GPRsystem.

94

Fig. 4. Shaded view of DTM of the Tilmen mound (from West):acropolis and lower town are clearly visible.

been surveyed as shown in fig. 1, where the let-ters identify the different surveyed areas.

The soil moisture conditions at the time ofthe survey were very dry (measured soil moisturewas at an average value over the entire area, of0.15 m3 m-3), thus facilitating the survey becauseof the overall low dielectric permittivity of thesoil. Several transects were repeated many times,by testing different system setups (such as wavevelocities, signal amplification and trace num-bers) to identify the best setup for the survey. Thedense surface scattering of basalt stones limitedthe extension of surveyed areas.

4.2. GPR Data Processing, Analysis andInterpretation

Data processing was performed using the soft-ware GPR Process, which provided time slicesthat are a bi-dimensional representation of thereflected signal amplitude at different depths6.

Maps of the buried features were created byusing various time slices. The maps, which maybe subsequently used for an archaeologicalinterpretation, represent the signal amplitudesrecorded by the GPR. A chromatic scale hasbeen used, with blue indicating low amplitudesand red representing high amplitudes. A vari-ety of maps were created to perform a detailedinterpretation of buried features. Identified fea-tures were then confirmed by analyzing the cor-responding original B-scan trace. Finally, inter-pretation was written on each time slice for itsrepresentation on geo-referenced maps.

All surveyed sectors (see fig. 1 sub a-g) dis-played significant differences in the dielectricproperties of the material both in the horizon-tal and vertical directions. Vertical dielectriccontrast occurs mostly at a depth comprisedbetween 30 and 90 cm. In some cases, the pres-ence of deeper features was also detected. Theslice map corresponding to sector “b” (fig. 5b)

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca Vittuari

6 For the analysis and interpretation of the GPR traces,see Conyers – Lucius 1996; Arnold et alii 1997;

95

Fig. 5. On the left, GPR time slice of the throne room in Royal Palace A (sector “f”) and the plan of an archaeologicalsounding showing the relation between the GPR reflection and the results of subsequent excavation. On the right, time sliceobtained in sector “b” at 30-35 ns with an interpretation of the main reflections (above), also visible in the B-scan (below).

Conyers – Goodman 1997; Piro 1998; Conyers et alii2002: 39-40; Conyers 2004: Chapter 7.

generated an image where parallel walls definetwo square rooms, with additional structures onboth sides. The vertical GPR traces (B-scan)confirmed the presence of walls and otherarchaeological evidences. It is worth noting thatthe buried features reveal similar proportionsand the same topographical orientation (45 to60 degrees to the North, and parallel to the lineof the northern casemates excavated nearby).These architectural characteristics suggest thatthe buried features belong to the same period asthe casemates, i.e. to MB II.

Sectors from “a” to “e” display the presenceof archaeological features, although interpolat-ed traces are not as clear as for sector “b”. Thismay be due to superficial basalt bedrock, whichis also responsible for some dielectric anomalies(such as in “c” and “d”). In sector “e” (fig. 6) itis possible to identify a small rectangular build-ing with most likely an outer floor in theSouth-West corner of the grid (the red feature

visible in the map), all elements similar to thoseexcavated in nearby Area L. In sector “a”, thereare at least three structures which were identi-fied by the GPR survey; the feature in theNorth-East corner complements a Late BronzeAge (hereafter LBA) structure revealed in theexcavations of Area L. In sectors “f” and “g”, theGPR survey identified various floors at a depthcomprised between 30 and 60 cm, while atdeeper levels there are probably walls and otherstructures. Within sector “f”, a test excavationduring the 2006 campaign (fig. 5a) confirmedthe existence of a corresponding earlier floor(dating from MB I) at the depth indicated bythe GPR survey.

Thus, in the lower town, where only MB IIand LB I layers are attested to, but where super-ficial bedrock sometime limits GPR interpreta-tion, some structures have been identified alongthe street ascending from postern K-3 to tem-ple M, as well as along the northern casemates,

Ocnus 17, 2009

96

Fig. 6. Map and superimposed time slices for sector “e”, east of excavated Building L.

here with the possibility of “seeing” also a fewinstallations. In the northern sector of theacropolis, on both sides of Building L, twoother isolated rectangular buildings similar tothe former have been detected7, thus giving animpression of a regular line of buildings sepa-rated from the casemates by a lozenge-shapedempty space, as proven also in a trench excavat-ed between Building L and the casemates to theNorth, in which a continuous MB II pavedouter surface had previously been exposed.

An additional GPR analysis was performedto measure the water table depth in severalareas of the site, for mapping subsurface hydrol-ogy. The study was part of a more general envi-ronmental assessment of the archaeological sitefor conservation purposes and for the develop-ment of an archaeological park (see Rossi Pisa etalii 2008).

(M.B., F.B., P.R.)

5. Conclusions

The understanding of an ancient urban set-ting cannot be accomplished today without nondestructive surveys integrated through a rigor-ous methodology. Geodetic infrastructures cre-ated in the last few decades allow for the adop-tion of an international reference frame forapplications that require a precise informationgeoreferencing. The obvious contrast of themore limited use of GPR in respect of the moreextensive one of the geomagnetic method, canbe used to the advantage of a stratigraphic, i.e.vertical, approach, as well as for soil informa-tion. Significant results for the study andunderstanding of the early second millenniumBC urbanism at Tilmen have been obtained: infact, the reliability of detailed urban informa-tion supplied by geophysic surveys in archaeol-ogy becomes greater when the archaeology of agiven settlement is already familiar. In this per-spective, geophysics represent a complement to

the excavations and not just a method for guid-ing in the selection of excavation areas.

Acknowledgments

The Tilmen project is directed by N.Marchetti of the Department of Archaeology ofthe Alma Mater Studiorum - University ofBologna, in cooperation with IstanbulUniversity (R. Duru, G. Umurtak) andGaziantep Museum (A. Denizhanogulları, M.Önal, A. Beyazlar). To our colleagues of theKültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlügüin Ankara we express our warmest gratitude fortheir unfailing advice and support. Thanks aredue, for their financial support, to theUniversity of Bologna and to the ItalianMinistries for Education, Universities andResearch (FIRB 2003 and PRIN 2005 projects)and that for Foreign Affairs (DGPCCDirectorate - 5th Section). M. Bittelli and F.Boschi would like to thank especially LawrenceConyers (University of Denver, Colorado) forhis dedication, kindness, enthusiasm and for hisprecious teaching on GPR in its archaeologicalapplications.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkım 1969 = U. B. Alkım, The Amanus Region inTurkey, in «Archaeology» 22, 1969, pp. 280-289.

Appadurai 1986 = A. Appadurai, The Social Life ofThings. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge 1986.

Arnold et alii 1997 = J.E. Arnold, E.L. Ambos, D.O.Larson, Geophysical Surveys of Stratigraphically ComplexIsland California Sites: New Implications for HouseholdArchaeology, in «Antiquity» 71, 1997, pp. 157-168.

Baker 2008 = H.D. Baker, Babylon in 484 BC: TheExcavated Archival Tablets as a Source for Urban History, in«ZA» 98, 2008, pp. 100-116.

Bitelli 2008 = G. Bitelli, Multiscale IntegratedApplication of Geomatic Techniques for Documentation ofCultural Heritage, in N. Marchetti, I. Thuesen (eds.),ARCHAIA. Case Studies on Research Planning,Characterisation, Conservation and Management inArchaeological Sites (BAR-S 1877), Archaeopress, Oxford2008, pp. 53-58.

Bitelli et alii 2006a = G. Bitelli, V.A. Girelli, F.

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca Vittuari

97

7 The depth of the westernmost one excludes that itbelongs to LBA or Roman superficial layers presentin that sector and allows an attribution for it to theMBA phase, probably to MB II; the building to theEast, on the contrary, lies beneath a slope for whichwe have already noticed that later levels were washedaway, thus supporting also a date to MB II for it.

Remondino, L. Vittuari, Surface Modelling of ComplexArchaeological Structures by Digital Close-RangePhotogrammetry, in Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalWorkshop From Space to Place, Rome, December 4-7 2006(BAR-S 1568), Archaeopress, Oxford 2006, pp. 321-326.

Bitelli et alii 2006b = G. Bitelli, V.A. Girelli, M.A.Tini, L. Vittuari, Spatial Geodesy Applications for AccurateGeoreferencing of Soknopaiou Nesos Site and DTMDetermination, in «Fayyum Studies» 2, 2006, pp. 15-22.

Cerasetti et alii 2008 = B. Cerasetti, V.A. Girelli, G.Luglio, B. Rondelli, M. Zanfoni, From Monument to Townand Country: Integrated Techniques of Surveying at TilmenHöyük in South-East Turkey, in J. M. Córdoba, M. Molist,M.C. Pérez, I. Rubio, S. Martínez (eds.), Proceedings of the5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the AncientNear East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006, UAM, Madrid 2008,pp. 393-402, vol.I.

Chermayeff, Alexander 1963 = S. Chermayeff, C.Alexander, Community and Privacy: Toward a NewArchitecture of Humanism, Doubleday, Garden City NY.

Conyers 2004 = L.B. Conyers, Ground-PenetratingRadar for Archaeology, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek CA2004.

Conyers, Goodman 1997 = L.B. Conyers, D.Goodman, Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction forArchaeologists. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek CA 1997.

Conyers, Lucius 1996 = L.B. Conyers, J.E. Lucius,Velocity Analysis in Archaeological Ground-PenetratingRadar Studies, in «Archaeological Prospection» 3, 1996,pp. 312-333.

Conyers et alii 2002 = L.B. Conyers, E.G. Ernenwein,L.-A. Bedal, Ground-penetrating Radar Discovery at Petra,Jordan, in «Antiquity» 76, 2002, pp. 339-340.

Duru 2003 = R. Duru, Unutulmus bir baskent. Tilmen.A Forgotten Capital City, TÜRSAB, Istanbul 2003.

Harris 1975 = R. Harris, Ancient Sippar. ADemographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City (1894-1595B.C.) (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 36), NederlandsHistorisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul,Istanbul-Leiden 1975.

Hillier, Hanson 1984 = B. Hillier, J. Hanson, TheSocial Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge 1984.

Kent 1990 = S. Kent (ed.), Domestic Architecture andthe Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-cultural Study,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.

Koldewey 1925 = R. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehendeBabylon. Die bisherigen Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen(6. Sendschrift der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft), J. C.

Hinrichs, Leipzig 19254.Leick 2004 = A. Leick, GPS Satellite Surveying, John

Wiley and Sons, New York 2004.Marchetti 2006a = N. Marchetti, Middle Bronze Age

Public Architecture at Tilmen Höyük and the ArchitecturalTradition of Old Syrian Palaces, in F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S.Mazzoni, F. Pinnock (eds.), ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi diArcheologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae, UniversitàLa Sapienza, Roma 2006, pp. 275-308.

Marchetti 2006b = N. Marchetti, New Results onMiddle Bronze Age Urbanism in South-Eastern Anatolia: The2004 Campaign at Tilmen Höyük, in «ColloquiumAnatolicum» 5, 2006, pp. 199-211.

Marchetti 2008a = N. Marchetti, A Preliminary Reporton the 2003 and 2004 Excavations at Tilmen Höyük, in H.Kühne, R. Czichon, F. Janoscha Kreppner (eds.),Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeologyof the Ancient Near East 2. Social and Cultural Transformation.Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 353-360.

Marchetti 2008b = N. Marchetti, A PreliminaryReport on the 2005 and 2006 Excavations at Tilmen Höyük,in J. M. Córdoba, M. Molist, M. C. Pérez, I. Rubio, S.Martínez (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congresson the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006, UAM, Madrid 2008, pp. 465-480, vol. II.

Marchetti 2008c = N. Marchetti, The 2006 JointTurkish-Italian Excavations at Tilmen Höyük, in 29. kazısonuçları toplantısı, 28 mayıs-1 haziran 2007, Kocaeli. 2.cilt, T.C. Kültür Bakanlıgı, Ankara 2008, pp. 389-402.

Matthews 1996 = R. Matthews, Surface Scraping andPlanning, in I. Hodder (ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük1993-95 (BIAA Monograph 22), McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research-British Institute of Archeologyat Ankara, Cambridge-London 1996, pp. 79-99.

Müller-Karpe 2007 = A. Müller-Karpe, Die sogenan-nte “Karawanserei” von Kusaklı-Sarissa. Von der Prospektionzur Rekonstruktion, in M. Posselt, B. Zickgraf, C. Dobiat(eds.), Geophysik und Ausgrabung. Einsatz und Auswertungzerstörungsfreier Prospektion in der Archäologie, Verlag MarieLeidorf, Rahden 2007, pp. 111-119.

Netting et alii 1984 = R. McC. Netting, R. R. Wilk,E.J. Arnould (eds.), Households: Comparative and HistoricalStudies of the Domestic Group, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley 1984.

Parker Pearson, Richards 1994 = M. Parker Pearson,C. Richards (eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches toSocial Space, Routledge, London 1994.

Piro 1998 = S. Piro, Integrazione di metodi geofisici adalta risoluzione per l’indagine nei siti archeologici (metodomagnetico – metodo georadar), in «Quaderni ITABC» 1,1998, pp. 53-70.

Ocnus 17, 2009

98

/

Postgate 1994 = J. N. Postgate, How Many Sumeriansper Hectare? Probing the Anatomy of an Early City, in«CambrAJ» 4, 1994, pp. 47-65.

Rossi Pisa et alii 2008 = P. Rossi Pisa, G. Bitelli, M.Bittelli, M. Speranza, L. Ferroni, P. Catizone, M.Vignudelli, Environmental Assessment of an ArchaeologicalSite for the Development of an Archaeological Park, in N.Marchetti, I. Thuesen (eds.), ARCHAIA. Case Studies onResearch Planning, Characterisation, Conservation andManagement in Archaeological Sites (BAR-S 1877),Archaeopress, Oxford 2008, pp. 273-284.

Stark 1998 = M. T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology ofSocial Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington 1998.

Stone, Zimansky 2004 = E.C. Stone, P. Zimansky,The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Survey and Soundingsat Mashkan-shapir, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake IN 2004.

Stümpel, Erkul 2006 = H. Stümpel, E. Erkul,Untersuchungen in Kusaklı 2004 und 2005. GeophysikalischeProspektion 2001-2004, in «MDOG» 138, 2006, pp. 37-41.

Summers, Summers 2006 = G. Summers, F.Summers, Aspects of Urban Design at the Iron Age City on theKerkenes Dag as Revealed by Geophysical Survey, in

«Anatolia Antiqua» XIV, 2006, pp. 71-88.Summers, Summers 2008 = G. Summers, F.

Summers, A Preliminary Interpretation of Remote Sensing andSelective Excavation at the Palatial Complex, Kerkenes, in«Anatolia Antiqua» XVI, 2008, in press.

Tonkiss 2005 = F. Tonkiss, Space, the City and SocialTheory: Social Relations and Urban Forms, Polity Press,Cambridge 2005.

Vittuari 2008 = L. Vittuari, Precise GlobalGeoreferencing of Sites and Geodetic Techniques forMorphological Surveys within a Common Reference Frame, inN. Marchetti, I. Thuesen (eds.), ARCHAIA. Case Studieson Research Planning, Characterisation, Conservation andManagement in Archaeological Sites (BAR-S 1877),Archaeopress, Oxford 2008, pp. 59-66.

Wilkinson 1990 = T. J. Wilkinson, Town and Countryin Southeastern Anatolia, 1. Settlement and Land Use atKurban Höyük and Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin(OIP 109), The Oriental Institute of the University ofChicago, Chicago 1990.

Wiseman, El-Baz 2007 = J. Wiseman, F. El-Baz(eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Springer, New York2007.

Gabriele Bitelli, Marco Bittelli, Federica Boschi, Nicolò Marchetti, Paola Rossi, Luca Vittuari

99